Loading...
PC MINS 20100323 Approved April 2 2 10 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:02 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, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, Associate Planner Trester, Associate Planner Mikhail APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the appeal hearing on the Planning Commission's decision regarding the Marymount College project is scheduled to occur on March 30th Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00497)• 30939 Rue Valois Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. She stated that staff received two comment letters regarding the project, which are part of the staff report. She explained that the residents at 30945 Rue Valois were originally concerned with view impacts as a result of the two-story addition, however staff noted the only areas that impacted the neighbor's ocean view were from portions of the home below 16 feet in height, which are not protected by the Development Code. The applicant did, however, do a slight redesign of the project to accommodate the neighbor's concerns. Staff also received a letter from a neighbor below the proposed project, citing privacy concerns. In order to mitigate these privacy concerns, staff proposed that the applicant provide approximately nine-foot tall foliage along the existing wall to mitigate impacts from the second story balcony. Staff also required obscured second story windows for privacy mitigation from the interior of the residence. Commissioner Knight questioned if the proposed rear balcony would be large enough for a sitting area. Associate Planner Mikhail answered the rear balcony will be approximately 190 square feet, 7 feet deep and 27 feet long. Commissioner Knight stated this could be a potential gathering area and asked staff if they felt this would affect privacy to neighboring residences. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff did find a privacy impact, and in order to mitigate that impact staff added a condition for the nine-foot foliage at the rear of the property. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they addressed the neighbor's concerns in regards to view impacts as a result of proposing the foliage mitigation. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that the view in question from the neighbor's property is not a protected view when considering foliage at a height of nine feet. Commissioner Leon referred to the tree in the front yard that staff is recommending be trimmed, and asked if there has been any request from any neighbor that this particular tree be trimmed. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that one requirement of the view ordinance is that any addition of 120 square feet or more will trigger a foliage analysis to be done by the City. Any foliage on the property which exceeds 16 feet in height and obstructs a protected view is required to be trimmed before a building permit is issued. In looking at an aerial photograph, Commissioner Leon noted that this particular neighborhood is layed out in such a way that all of the properties do not impinge upon views from other properties. He felt that one of the compatibility issues within this community is to line up the rear facades of the houses so that all of the houses would be compatible in terms of bulk and mass, and therefore not blocking views of other Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 2 houses. He did not think this application has taken that aspect into account. While one could say the view is not protected under 16 feet, one could also say that in terms of neighborhood compatibility that all of these houses seem to line up their rear facades except for this proposed application. He asked staff if the Commission could consider, in terms of neighborhood compatibility, the lining up of the rear facades as common in this neighborhood. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the Commission can look at setbacks and orientation of a home in terms of how they're laid out in comparison to other homes within the neighborhood. She also noted that the applicant is maintaining the same rear setback with the new house as is existing with the current house. Commissioner Leon referred to a portion of the existing house that he felt appears to be an addition to the original house, and asked staff if they knew if that addition was done with City permits. Associate Planner Mikhail did not know when the addition was built and if it was permitted or not. Commissioner Knight referred to the proposed wall in the front yard, noting that it doesn't seem compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood, and asked if there was a certain function for this wall that the applicant felt was necessary. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant noted they wanted to maintain a uniform wall across the front yard. She explained that a 3 Y2 foot wall is allowed in this area, and in order to not have a stepped wall, the applicant needed the extra couple feet at one end of the property. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. George Shaw (architect) felt this is a very important project, as it not only is the first tear down and rebuild on the street, but it is also proposed to be a two-story house. Because of that, he was very conscious to follow the City's neighborhood compatibility guidelines and try to improve the existing character of the neighborhood. He explained that the second story was kept very modest, noting it is only 31 percent of the total structure area. He felt that the view issues have been resolved in regards to the Fredrick's residence. In terms of privacy issues, he explained that this issue just came up last week and he has tried to do some studies on the issue. He felt that there is a solution that will afford the neighbors their privacy. Regarding the rear setbacks, he noted that this lot is not a typical lot in the neighborhood, pointing out the odd shape of the lot. He stated he was never informed of any kind of a deed restriction or anything that dictates a line that he had to hold behind. He stated the house has been kept generally within the footprint of the existing house. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Shaw to explain the need for the proposed wall in the front. Planning commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 3 Mr. Shaw explained that the wall was originally designed to help hide the air conditioning equipment that was to be placed in the area. The air conditioning equipment has since been moved to a different location. The wall now helps to minimize the amount of paving seen from the street, mainly because of the proposed auto court. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Shaw why he didn't move the house out towards the front setback rather than moving it closer to the rear setback. Mr. Shaw answered that because of the shape of the lot, as you move in you move closer to the side property lines. Because of the second story he didn't want the house too close to the street, but rather set back as much as possible. He also wanted to preserve the views from the house. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Shaw how he felt about having the entire ocean facing windows obscured. Mr. Shaw noted that there are a lot of ways of handling privacy issues, some of it with obscured glass and some of it with landscaping. He noted the bedroom window was quite a distance from the wall and with the added landscaping there may not be a need for obscured glass in that area. He also felt it would be possible for him to move some of the windows to help mitigate the privacy concerns. Ed Griffin (property owner) clarified that the tree in the front that is over 16 feet in height will have to be removed in order to build the house. As to the privacy issue, he did not think the proposed balcony was no longer reasonably in the view of the neighbor's back yard. He was hoping to avoid having to obscure the windows in this area. He agreed that the bedroom window on the eastern side will be in the view, and he would be happy to pay for a hedge to be installed on the neighbor's side of the wrought iron fence. Regarding the orientation of the house, he explained that he and the architect worked very hard to keep the corners of the house in the back within the existing building envelope. Matt Fredricks stated the view problem for him has been resolved as it relates to the building, however the new hedge proposal will take away quite a bit of his view. Planting of a foliage barrier will channel his view between the foliage barrier and the two-story structure and will be a significant impact to him. Kimia Ahmadv stated that she likes her house and doesn't want to see any changes. Ali Ahmadv stated his concerns with the project were with the privacy inside the house in two bedrooms and the privacy in his backyard. He felt planting foliage on his property would be difficult due to the high slope and the foliage should be either on Mr. Fredrick's property or on the applicant's property along the side of the Fredrick's backyard. He felt that the only option would be opaque windows. He also explained that the minimum Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 4 height is important to him, not the maximum. His solution would be that there is no access allowed to the balcony, have all of the windows open through the balcony, have windows with clear glass with 5 feet above the floor of the room, and to have to foliage planted. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Ahmady if he felt his privacy would be protected if the balcony were made narrower and inaccessible. Mr. Ahmady stated that was correct. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Ahmady how he felt his view would be affected if the applicant's house were moved forward. Mr. Amhady answered that he could not visualize how that would affect his view. Ranwa Haddad (property owner) explained that since moving into her home she has always wanted to improve the house in such a way as that the improvement would serve her family as well as improve the neighborhood. She also wanted a green project, and has filled out the required paperwork. She explained that they have worked closely with the neighborhood to try to meet all of their concerns, but didn't know about Mr. Ahmady's issues until two days ago. In regards to the proposed hedge between the Fredricks residence and the Ahmady residence, she stated that she would be more than willing to expend the resources needed to build it, no matter how difficult because of the slope on the Amhady property. Commissioner Tomblin asked Ms. Haddad about the proposed motor court in the front yard. Ms. Haddad explained that they wanted to minimize the house footprint on the property because of the proposed second story. She also noted that they had the added constraint of the narrower width of the lot at the front of the property. She stated that there is very little parking available on the street, and they felt the motor court would allow them to park their vehicles on the property rather than on the street. Commissioner Leon noted that there has been a suggestion that the size of the rear balcony be minimized so that it be more decorative and less of a sitting area. He asked Ms. Haddad her feelings on that. Ms. Haddad answered that she would very much like to step out onto that balcony on a hot summer day. However, she reminded the Commission that privacy is a two way street and that they also have privacy concerns from their bedroom windows. She was willing to consider some modifications to the balcony, but added that to her balconies are an integral part of the Mediterranean architecture. George Shaw (in rebuttal) explained that the rear elevation of the residence is quite important, as it can be seen from Hawthorne Boulevard. Aesthetically he did not think Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 5 that changing the size of a balcony on one floor and not the other would work. He also explained that the balconies on the first and second floor serve as sun protection for the residence. He noted that on the second floor there are only two bedrooms, and therefore it is good to have the windows set far back in. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Shaw if he felt there was any way to rotate the house or push it back on the lot to help solve the privacy issues, as he was concerned about the opaque windows, the balcony issues, and the use of the hedge. Mr. Shaw felt that master bedroom will not be a problem, as it will be well behind the screening. The middle room window is in a closet, so it won't be a problem. He also noted that the windows in the master bedroom are setback almost 60 feet. Chairman Gerstner noted that planting a nine-foot tall hedge will cause Mr. Fredricks to lose a protected view. Therefore, it is likely the Commission would not approve a hedge to that height, and he asked Mr. Shaw how the concerns would then be addressed without this nine-foot tall hedge. Mr. Shaw answered that Mr. Fredricks may lose a view with any hedge planted. He explained that his understanding was that staff established the primary view for Mr. Fredricks as the view from the lighthouse over to the subject residence. The secondary view is being able to see Catalina over the ridge of the mountains coming down from City Hall. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Shaw how he would feel about making the balcony railing opaque, in terms of architectural style. Mr. Shaw answered that the balcony railing could be opaque. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify the view from the Fredricks residence. He felt that the impacted view was below the 16 foot level and asked if that was then a view the Commission could protect. Director Rojas explained that the view from the Fredricks residence is not a protected view when considering foliage below 16 feet in height, as the Code allows for trees up to 16 feet in height or the ridgeline of the residence, whichever is lower, regardless of view impairment. Also, the Municipal Code allows for hedges up to 16 feet in height, unless regulated by the view restoration ordinance. In this case the hedges would not be regulated by the view restoration ordinance. He also explained there is a finding the Commission must make regarding privacy impacts. If the Commission agrees with staff that the balcony creates a privacy infringement to the neighbor, there are ways to mitigate this infringement. If the Commission feels there is no mitigation solution to the privacy issue, the Commission has the discretion to eliminate the balcony. Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 6 Commissioner Lewis stated that he is very reluctant to approve a project that involves the creation of additional foliage that would impair a view. He noted that there is still plenty of time under the Permit Streamling Act, and the neighbors appear able to discuss these issues and work together to find solutions. He felt the Commission does a disservice to the community when they try to redesign a project. Therefore, he was inclined to continue the public hearing to give the parties time to talk and work out a reasonable solution. Commissioner Tomblin agreed. He stated that he likes the project, likes the design, however felt that there can be some adjustments made to address the concerns. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff, in terms of relative importance and the General Plan, which is more important, an ocean view or privacy. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that when looking at impacts caused by a proposed second story, the two issues are looked at separately and equally, as there are two separate findings that must be made. Commissioner Emenhiser felt the issues involved were the property rights of one neighbor versus the view considerations of one neighbor and the privacy concerns of another neighbor. He agreed with Commissioners Lewis and Tomblin that there is time to try to continue this item to let the neighbors work out a solution amongst themselves. He also suggested that an opaque wrought iron fence on the property might help with the privacy concerns. Chairman Gerstner felt that two things must happen for this project to be approved. He felt that the privacy of the lower neighbor needs to be reasonably protected, and in that regard he felt that generally property owners have a certain responsibility to protect their own privacy. Secondly, he felt that it was important to maintain Mr. Fredricks' view to the extent possible. He felt that there were opportunities available to do both, and supported the suggestion that the public hearing be continued to explore these possibilities. Chairman Gerstner asked the property owner if he would be willing to grant a one time, 90 day extension per the Permit Streamling Act to allow for time to work with the neighbors to address the privacy and view concerns. Mr. Griffin granted the one time, 90 day extension. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to April 13, 2010 allow the applicant to work with the neighbors to address the view and privacy concerns expressed by the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 7 2. View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP2009-00017): 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East and 2 Bronco Drive Commissioner Tomblin stated he was not able to make the required site visit and recused himself from the public hearing. Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the case and showed photographs of the view as seen from the viewing area of the two applicant's properties. She also explained that the property owner at 13 Cayuse Lane has significantly trimmed the vegetation on her property and has been removed from the application. She discussed the various trees on the application and the staff's recommendations, as noted in the staff report. She stated that staff believes all sis of the required findings can be made to approve the View Restoration Permit and was recommending the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft revised resolution and conditions of approval. Commissioner Knight noted that there was a previous view restoration application before the Commission with several of these properties, and asked if the viewing area is the same now as it was with the previous application. Associate Planner Trester explained that once a view case is approved that viewing area becomes established as the viewing area for that property. Chairman Gerstner opened the puolic hearing. James White (applicant) felt that staff had done a very thorough and fair job with the staff report and agreed with the staff's recommendations in regards to the foliage. Susan Ghormley (applicant) also thanked staff and stated she agreed with staff's recommendations. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve staff recommendation, as revised by staff and with the addition of language in the Resolution documenting the efforts staff made in regards to the Parsons in delivering the staff report to the doorstep of the residence, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Leon stated that he was concerned with tree No. 1 and hoped that the crown reduction would be done in such a way that will preserve the tree while opening up the view. Associate Planner Trester explained that the city arborist has looked at these trees and felt that, because of the type of tree, heavily lacing tree No. 1 would result in most of the needles being removed and the tree would most likely not survive. Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 8 The motion was approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin recused. 3. General Plan Update (Case No. ZON2008-00160) — Conservation/Open Space, Land Use and Housing Elements Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report. Beginning with the Conservation and Open Space Element, he explained that the Planning Commission sub-committee has been working on the draft and making revision, and the Commission has before them the sub-committee's recommended draft element. He noted that in the draft recommendation there are four items that are unresolved and need input from the Commission. He also noted that the Commission should review and approve changes to the policies associated with this element. In discussing the unresolved items, he began with page 11 of the staff report and explained that staff was unclear if Commissioner Tetreault had wanted anything changed or not. Commissioner Lewis stated it was his observation of Commissioner Tetreault's edits that he was suggesting the addition of "below State and Federal emission standards". Deputy Director Pfost felt that was a very good possibility and would add that word. The Commission agreed that made sense. Deputy Director Pfost then referred L) a comment by Commissioner Tetreault on page 15 of the report. He felt that the coy iii hent had been addressed, but asked the Commission if they felt any other change was needed. Commissioner Leon stated that he would prefer to see these documents with strike through and underline, as it clearly identifies the changes. He asked if there was a reason why staff decided not to use this method on this document. Deputy Director Pfost explained thui 6iatf is taking sections of the General Plan and combining them into one. Staff is using the text of the existing General Plan when possible, noting there is so much text that is being revised that it is very difficult to merge them together. Chairman Gerstner agreed that it would be much easier for the Commission to know what language is from the General hien and what language is the revised language. He asked that staff start with this elem,.,r �, and requested staff go back and do a strike through with this element and future; c:iements. The Commissioners agreed. After a short discussion the Commission decided to review the policy section of the report first. Deputy Director Pfost explained tha iejse policies were reviewed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee, which ...as a Committee formed by the City Council. He explained that when these policies presented to the City Council any changes made Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 9 will appear in strike-through or bold underline with a note that the Planning Commission recommended a change to the policy. He noted that changes before the Commission were recommended by the Planning Commission sub-committee. Chairman Gerstner began with the first recommended change to item No. 3. There were no objections to the proposed change to item No. 3. Deputy Director Pfost noted that there are no changes suggested for item No. 4 and staff would like to keep it that way until staff receives further direction from the City Attorney on the subject. Moving ahead to page 40, Number 8, Deputy Director Pfost noted the changes were mostly grammatical. The Commission agreed. The Commission continued to review the language presented by staff. Chairman Gerstner commented that it was important to him that the language be as specific as it needs to be, and no more, and that the document not use sensational language. He also wanted this to be as consistent as possible with the original General Plan and the Steering Committee, but also felt that she Commission should take a fresh look at the words and how they relate to the goals of the General Plan to make sure there is consistency. Deputy Director Pfost explained that lie will make the suggested changes to the Conservation Element and get those changes to the Commission in a strike-through version. Deputy Director Pfost explained that ii le next element will be the Land Use Element, and there is a sub-committee that will be reviewing this element in detail. He noted that the Land Use Element should include a little more analysis on the City's future land development potential, noting the currL;nt text is a bit generic. He explained that over the next week staff will be including additional information in this element to provide a bit more analysis than is currently available. Once this is done it will be forwarded to the sub-committee for review. Deputy Director Pfost briefly discussed the Housing Element which was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and how to incorporate this element into the General Plan, He noted the three opt',)ns presented in the staff report. He stated he would bring this element back at a futu,"o meeting. Deputy Director Rfost explained the r<�cu for a new Element in the General Plan, the Visual Resources Element, and the need for a sub-committee to review the element. The Commission chose Commissioners Tetreault, Lewis and Leon as the members of this sub-commirtee. 4. Proposwd View Restoration f;:,rt Preservation Guideline amendments Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 10 Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the April 13, 2010 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of February 23, Commissioner Tomblin moved to apt:l-Eve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, N TO BE P LACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-acicnda for the meetii.,: f April 13, 2010 The Commission had no commentt, ,.;; ire pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10-45 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2010 Page 11