Loading...
PC MINS 20100713 Approved Augusil�10 010 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 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 Tetreault 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 upcoming July 20, 2010 meeting the City Council will be reviewing the Planning Commission's recommend amendments to the View Restoration Guidelines. Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2008-00656): 6752 Eddinghill Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and describing the modifications made by the applicant to address the concerns that the Commission had raised at the previous hearing. She stated that staff's original recommendation for the project was approval and if the Planning Commission feels the modifications address their concerns, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault and Vice Chairman Tomblin both stated they were not at the meeting when this project was first heard by the Planning Commission, however they have reviewed the minutes and the original staff report, and felt they could participate in this discussion. Commissioner Lewis asked if staff or the applicant had any additional photographs regarding the privacy issues since the last time this was heard by the Commission. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff does have new photos taken from the homes of the neighbor to the north and the neighbor to the south of the applicant. Tim Alon (applicant) stated he has read the staff report and neighbor's letters and was prepared to respond. He stated that one of the complaints was from the neighbor directly below him and he referred to a picture taken from his property which shows that because of the trees and foliage, he is not able to see into his neighbor's backyard. He noted his neighbor's concern that foliage may die and there will then be a privacy issue, however he stated that he will pay for any new foliage needed. He also noted that the neighbor has trees that block a portion of his view to the west, however he has never asked, nor will he ask his neighbor to cut these trees. Peter Zhenk stated he is the neighbor that lives directly below the applicant and has a concern with privacy to his residence. He explained that he can work with his neighbor to maintain the foliage and trees on the property for privacy issues, however his neighbor may chose to move in the future and he questioned what new neighbors might do. He suggested moving the window up above eye level to help with the privacy issues and making the side of the balcony a solid wall. John Rindge stated his main concern is the compatibility of the project with the neighborhood. He explained that he looks down onto the homes on Plainfield Drive, and there is a gradual lowering of the roof lines down the street. He felt that this project is a large, box-like structure set on top of a single story home. He felt the project will be out of character with the surrounding homes, as it will stick up above the other roof lines surrounding it. He noted that this one proposed addition is affecting four surrounding neighbors. He stated that the staff report was concerned with the elevations that were taken at ground level and did not include any views from above. He felt that this was a bad design and should not be approved. Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2010 Page 2 Haejung Shin explained that her house is right below the applicant's house and discussed the trees and foliage on her property and the applicant's property and her concerns with privacy and views. She was very concerned with the lack of privacy into her master bedroom and master bathroom. Commissioner Knight noted that the applicant had sent the Shins a letter offering to replace foliage on the property that would increase their privacy. He asked if that was an acceptable solution. Ms. Shin answered that she felt if the tree dies the applicant will have to replace that tree with the same time of tree that is the same size as the existing tree. Mark Wilbur explained that the applicant is the fifth owner of this house since he moved into his home in 1992. Therefore, he felt that questions about future owners when discussing foliage and vegetation are quite relevant. He explained that staff finally visited his property earlier that afternoon, only a few hours before this hearing. He therefore felt that a decision regarding this addition had already been made by staff, and he felt that decision was made with prejudice. He stated that to make a fair decision staff should have visited his property before the first Planning Commission hearing. Secondly, he noted that even though there is no window shown on the south side of the property, there is nothing in the Code that says the owners can't put one in at a later date. In regards to his view, he noted that he can see the Malibu coast from both the upstairs and downstairs of his residence, and that coast is a protected view. He asked that the Commission deny the current proposed project. Nancy Jeng stated that she has a view from the kitchen, dining room, and living room of her residence and this proposed addition will block that view. She said that she sent in a letter asking that the City go to look at that view. Mr. Alon (in rebuttal) explained that the planting of foliage he suggested will be on the Wilbur's side of his property to alleviate privacy concerns. He noted the complaints that his proposed addition will not look like other homes in the neighborhood, however he explained that he took pictures of two recent additions on Eddinghill that he felt are very similar to the design of his proposed addition. He explained that he has no reason to put a window on the south side of his home, as that is the area where the stairs will be located, and even if he put a window there it would not be one that he could look out of. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Alon if he and his architect had explored any modifications as to exactly where this second story is placed and if there is someplace else it could be placed so that it would not have as much of an impact on the Wilbur's view. Mr. Alon explained that one of the reasons it was placed at the far end was for privacy issues. He also chose to have the addition more to the rear of the property rather than the front to help the house on the street above. Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2010 Page 3 Commissioner Lewis asked staff why they didn't do a view analysis from the second floors of the neighboring properties. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the way the Wilbur's house is designed the view impact on the second floor occurs in their bedroom, which is not a protected view. She explained that the Wilbur's have a protected view from their living room, which looks towards the south. Commissioner Lewis stated that he has great compassion for the neighbors, as he felt there were some wonderful views being destroyed by this proposed addition. However, these views are not protected views and the Commission does not have the discretion to deny this project based on those views. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staffs recommendation to approve the project as conditioned in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Leon discussed the terraced nature of the roof tops going down Eddinghill Drive. He noted that there are a number of two-story structures on the street associated with the terraced roof tops and did not think there is any consistent terracing that exists today. Commissioner Knight empathized with the neighbors who may lose a portion of their views when this project is built, however he agreed with Commissioner Lewis when he stated that it is not within the Commission's purview to deny a project because of a view impact from an unprotected view area. He stated that he was able to make the necessary findings to approve the proposed project. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the Commission has areas in which they can use discretion but there are also areas where they have to follow the Code. He agreed that the views being lost were from unprotected viewing areas, as defined in the Code, and could therefore make the findings to approve the project. Vice Chairman Tomblin agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners and was also able to make the necessary findings to approve the project. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the motion to add a condition that the applicant be prohibited from adding windows to the south side of the residence without approval from the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Leon asked staff, if there are no windows on the proposed plan on the south side of the residence, could the owner at a future date put windows on the south side of the residence without coming before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2010 Page 4 Director Rojas explained that without a condition expressly prohibiting windows on the south side of the residence it would not prohibit someone from putting windows in that location in the future. Director Rojas suggested the proposed condition read that no windows shall be added to the south side of the second story addition without Planning Commission approval. The Commission agreed with the proposed language. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2010-21 thereby approving the Height Variation and Site Plan Review as amended was approved, (6-0). 2. Revision to Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00469): 27774 Hawthorne Boulevard Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and reminding the Commission of the direction they had given the applicant and their architect at the previous public hearing. She explained the changes made to the project as outlined in the staff report. She stated that staff feels the revised project helps create a structure that further integrates the proposal with the neighboring properties without appearing massive. Therefore staff feels the Planning Commission's previously expressed concerns have been addressed, and if the Planning Commission agrees, staff recommends certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the revised project. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the proposed balcony could be accessed and used. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the patio can be accessed from the second floor office area, noting that staff has added a condition prohibiting it from being used as a lounge or meeting area. She also noted that the area has been restricted to be used by the property owner only and not the general public. Gale Coffman (architect) showed drawings of the original plan he submitted and the revised design. He felt that this design had a more residential feel, as requested by the Commission. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted the metal screens and roof for the equipment on the roof, and asked if these could be seen from the street or from above. Mr. Coffman answered that this cannot be seen from the street, and those who can look down to the top of the facility will be able to see the roof and screen. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked why this area could not have a matching tile roof. Mr. Coffman did not think the tile roof would improve anything and only make the area look like it had little bird houses sitting on top. Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2010 Page 5 Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Coffman if he would have any objections to decreasing the plain wall by adding some decorative lighting features to the area. Mr. Coffman stated that lighting has been an issue in this area and has therefore tried to stay away from it. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if there was a condition included that prohibited outside venders from selling their items on the site. Director Rojas stated that if there is not such a condition that one will be added. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff how they felt about adding some decorative outdoor lighting to the area. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff did not encourage the applicant to add any more lighting than was necessary at the site. She noted that lighting has been an issue in the past on this property and at the last public hearing there was some concern from the residents about the lighting on the property. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staffs recommendation to certify the mitigated negative declaration, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation to approve the project with the following amendments: 1) Condition No. 35 be modified to include language that no gasoline shall be dispensed after operating hours; 2) Additional language added that the roof equipment be better screened from above by the use of tile to match the existing roof; 3) All mitigation measures be incorporated and adopted, 4) Incorporation of language that prohibits the sale of merchandise from outside vendors without first obtaining approval from the City, and 5) The Resolution presented to the Vice Chairman for signature includes the most recent language and all of the updated revisions to the project, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. General Plan Update— "Draft" Fiscal and Land Use Element Vice Chairman Tomblin began by explaining that as a member of the subcommittee looking at the fiscal element, he was not able to submit his comments to staff to review. Further, Chairman Gerstner is also on that subcommittee and he is not present to discuss the element. Therefore, he suggested the discussion on the fiscal element be continued to the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2010 Page 6 Deputy Director Pfost suggested that if the Commission has any comments regarding the fiscal element, staff would like to hear those comments, however he would rather defer any questions about the fiscal element to a meeting when a member of the Finance Department is present to answer those questions. Commissioner Leon noted that all of the goals in the fiscal element are associated with increasing revenues for the City. He felt that one of the goals of the city founders was that this be a low expense type city. He therefore suggested adding goals associated with that goal into the General Plan. He suggested adding a goal to minimize the size of government and maintain low expenditure levels, as well as a goal that says the City should maintain one and five year financial plans and budget within those plans. Commissioner Knight stated he would also like to see some goals in place to reduce operating costs in terms of energy efficiency improvements that would help reduce the demand on the budget. The Commission agreed to forward any other comments and/or questions to the Deputy Director, who would then add staff response inserted to review at the next meeting. Regarding the land use element, Deputy Director Pfost recommended the subcommittee try to get comments to him in the next week so that can be brought to the Commission at the July 27th meeting. Commissioner Knight noted a letter received from a resident and asked staff to respond to the concerns raised. Deputy Director Pfost stated that staff can look at revising some of the language in regards to the Annenberg project, as he felt the project was worth noting in the land use element at this time. Commissioner Knight felt that the Abalone Cove Nature Educational Center was in too early a stage to be included in the General Plan. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that the Abalone Cove project is in its preliminary stages, but felt that this project would be one worthy to include in this element of the General Plan. Commissioner Lewis felt that whether or not a project is controversial should not determine its inclusion in the General Plan. He noted that both the Annenberg project and the Abalone Cove project are major projects that will have an impact on this City and should be mentioned in the General Plan. The Commission discussed minor changes and staff stated they would research and add these comments to the element that will then come back to the Commission on July 27th Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2010 Page 7 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on July 27, 2010 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2010 Page 8