Loading...
PC MINS 20101026 Approved Nove r, 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 26, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:06 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, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their October 19, 2010 meeting the City Council initiated a code amendment to implement programs identified in the City's 2008 Housing Element. Director Rojas distributed five items of correspondence and a geological report for agenda item No. 1. Vice Chairman Tomblin reported that he received a phone call from a resident raising concerns with the exterior lighting of the City's Mirandela project. Director Rojas explained that the current lighting is the temporary construction lighting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation, Grading Permit & Extreme Slope Permit (Case No ZON2009-00170): 54 Rockinghorse Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project, noting both the permitted and unpermitted work, and the need for the three permit applications before the Commission. She showed several photographs of the property which showed the non-permitted construction and explained each component of the project. She stated the applicant has requested the project be continued to the December 14th meeting to allow him additional time to review and process the geology for the site. Commissioner Knight asked if the work before the Planning Commission is more than 50 percent of the existing structure. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that what is before the Planning Commission constitutes more than 50 percent of the existing structure. Commissioner Knight questioned the basement addition, noting that the area referred to as a basement actually has one side open out into an open area. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the staff report staff incorrectly identified the area as a basement. She noted the area is not a basement, but rather a lower floor addition. Commissioner Knight also noted in the staff report that the existing rear retaining walls will be removed and the slope restored. He asked to what steepness the slope will be returned to. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the slope will be restored to a 2:1 slope. Commissioner Tetreault noted that this is now a two-story home, and asked staff if the residence impairs any views from any other residence. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the house does not impair views from surrounding residences due to the fact that the addition is completely beneath the existing residence. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if the non-permitted retaining wall had any geology done for it, or if there was a structural plan or calculations for the wall. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that no geology reports had been submitted to the City prior to the illegal wall being built, nor had any plans been submitted for the Planning commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 2 Building Department to review; however 1800 square feet of retaining wall was permitted. Commissioner Knight asked if the City will require some type of review on the structural integrity of the second floor over the basement area. Director Rojas explained that when staff first went to the site the Building Official questioned the structural integrity of the structure over the dug out basement area. As a result, the City's geologist performed an urgency inspection and the owner was required to do some urgency shoring of the structure. Commissioner Leon asked if the basement is fully complete. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the basement is fully excavated, but not completed. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Frank Colaruotolo (applicant) began by explaining the entire south side of the retaining wall was built at the same time the home was built. He stated the City inspectors may not have inspected the entire wall at the time, but noted that his soils engineer was also there during the construction. His soils engineer tested the compaction of the soils around the wall and viewed the foundation. He stated that when the house was signed off by the City in late 2004 or 2005 the entire wall had been completed. He explained that he has asked staff for an extension on this current process so that he can have his soils engineer thoroughly study the site and answer all of the questions the City's geologist may have. He also wants to finish with the surveys of the property so that he can ensure he is meeting all of the required setbacks. Chairman Gerstner noted that if the Planning Commission does continue this item Mr. Colaruotolo will have to grant the City a one time extension per the Permit Streamlining Act, and asked Mr. Colaruotolo if he will grant that extension. Mr. Colaruotolo granted the extension. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Colaruotolo if he had any documentation of rebar and documentation of footings for this project. Mr. Colaruotolo answered that he has engineering from his structural engineer in terms of rebar and materials. He noted that he has done some destructive testing to allow the geologist to look at the depth of footings, thickness of footings, the type of rebar, and to verify there are drains at the back side of certain walls. Saeed Shahidi stated he is the soils engineer for this project and started working at the site in 2002. He stated he was involved with the geotechnical inspection of the south retaining wall, and noted everything was documented and submitted to the City at the Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 3 time. He explained that about a year ago he found out that the owner constructed the basement and the north retaining wall, which was done without his recommendations and inspection. After talking with the City's geotechnical consultant, he did some deconstructive testing within the wall, under the slab, and in front of the retaining wall. He stated he is about half way through with the work, as he has been going back and forth with the City's geologist. He noted that he recently dug test pits on the property to determine the actual condition of the soil to help determine the integrity of the wall. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Shahidi if he certified the bottom of the south wall. Mr. Shahidi answered that he certified the bottom of the entire length of the south wall. He also certified the drainage and compaction. He noted that he has no information about the last lift of soil on the wall. Rich Telford stated he is speaking on behalf of his clients, the Grafs. He explained that their main issue in regards to the project is safety. He explained that in 1979 the Grafs built walls along their property that up to 2004 were stable and no cracking was apparent. In 2004 cracking began to appear in the wall and the rec room, and recently Mr. Graf hired American Geotechnical to look at the walls. He explained that the Grafs biggest concern was the very easterly end of the Colaruotolo property that is so close to the Graf s property. He wanted to ensure that everything is done to building code requirements and has supporting details, and is inspected by the City to ensure it is safe. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Telford if he was saying that what was done on the Colaruotolo property may have caused some type of acceleration of movement to cause cracks in the Graf s walls. Mr. Telford answered that it may have, but they cannot know for sure. He noted that a significant amount of fill and a retaining wall were added to the area below the Graf s property and they just want to make sure the retaining wall was properly built. Commissioner Leon asked if there has been any attempt to measure the widening of the gaps in the wall and correlate it with work done on the property below. Mr. Telford answered that this has not been done. Sheila Naghi stated she lives directly north of the subject property. She wanted to ensure that the Commission received the letter she sent in last week regarding the project and that no decisions be made until they do read her letter. She explained that she did a remodel to her home in 1996 and was up against the City during every step of the process. Her concern was why the owner, who is also the builder of this project, seek permits from the City from the beginning. She stated her main concern is safety. She felt Mr. Colaruotolo is an individual who takes risks by going forward with work on his property, whether permitted or not, and does as he see fit. He does not seem to have any regard for the City rules and regulations, nor does he seem to care about his Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 4 neighbors' property. She stated that she needs the City to be involved and she wants a message given to the owner that this work must be in coordination with the City's rules. She was also concerned about the punch outs, and did not think they are compliant with City's setbacks. She also did not think the pop outs were compatible with the neighborhood. She questioned if the pop outs block her neighbor's view of the ocean, noting her neighbor is currently out of the country. Mr. Colaruotolo (in rebuttal) reiterated that the south wall was built at one time and has not been modified. In regards to the neighbor's concern with the cracks in their wall, he noted that in the area in question on his property there was no cut done, only a small amount of fill. If anything, he felt this would have bettered the situation. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Colaruotolo if he did the work on the house himself and if he is a licensed contractor. Mr. Colaruotolo answered that he did the work himself and that he is a licensed contractor. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Colaruotolo if it is his practice to do construction without first getting City permits. Mr. Colaruotolo answered that he does get permits. He noted that at no time in 2004 did any City inspector or worker make any mention that he would need to get a permit to extend the length of the wall. He noted that the City inspectors inspected the rebar, foundation, and top of wall without any mention on the added length. He acknowledged that he should have gone to the City and tell them he was adding 100 additional feet of wall. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Colaruotolo if he, as a licensed contractor, added the pop outs and basement without a permit. Mr. Colaruotolo answered that he did the work without a permit. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of December 14, 2010, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that he would prefer not to continue the public hearing, but go with option No. 3 in the staff report and deny the project. He felt that in this situation there is a licensed contractor who fully knows the responsibilities and obligations as to what they're supposed to do in terms of getting City approvals. He asked staff the purpose of the requested continuance, and what information the City is still seeking. Director Rojas explained that he has been out to the site, and staff's primary concern is safety, the stability of the walls, and if they can be made structurally sound and meet the Building Code. He stated that has been the main focus of the discussions with the Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 5 applicant, and the applicant is currently attempting to demonstrate to the City Geologist that they are sound. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that these walls are safe, they will have to be removed. Further, if the Planning Commission cannot make the findings to allow these walls they will have to be removed. However, if the Commission is able to make the findings to allow the walls at a certain height then the applicant will have parameters to meet when submitting plans to Building and Safety. He explained that because of these issues, staff is agreeing with the applicant's request for a continuance to allow the applicant the opportunity to have a geologic review done and approved by the City. Associate Planner Mikhail added that if the application were denied and the City directs the owner to return the area back to its original state, that would also have to be reviewed and approved by the City. This might include additional grading at the site, which would also have to be reviewed by the City Geologist. Director Rojas added that in his discussions with the City Geologist, he has asked him what is generally preferred in these types of situations. He questioned if the site will be more stable if it is brought back to the original condition or will the restoration work raise other issues. He stated that the City Geologist has indicated that generally it would be his preference that if the walls are proven to be structurally sound that they remain, in some format, at the site. He understood the Vice Chairman's frustration of a contractor taking this project on without permits, however that is not one of the findings that must be made. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the issue of the setbacks for the pop outs is before the Commission at this time, or if it is being handled as a code violation. Director Rojas answered that the plans that have been submitted to the City show a five foot setback. Staff feels the applicant's plans demonstrate that the pop outs meet the setback, however because the abutting neighbor is questioning the setback, staff is asking the applicant for a survey to verify the setback which is typically not requested. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the applicant was required to pay any penalty fees because this is an after-the-fact application. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant is required to pay after-the-fact fees for his planning applications and his building permit. Commissioner Lewis asked, once those fines have been paid, in terms of the Planning Commission's review is there is distinction between after-the-fact approval and pre- approval of a proposed project. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that the same findings are required to be made whether the project has already been built or not. Planning commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 6 Commissioner Knight asked staff if they had considered the view impact by the pop outs, or if the pop outs are below sixteen feet in height. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the pop outs are below the sixteen foot height limit and therefore no view analysis is required. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they have done a neighborhood compatibility analysis, especially in regards to these pop outs being so close to the property line. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff did not look at other properties in the neighborhood to see how close they were to the side property lines. She noted that a survey is done using the aerial photograph to get a general idea of how close various homes are to their property lines. The motion to continue the public hearing to December 14th was approved, (6-1) with Vice Chairman Tomblin dissenting. 2. Floor Area Ratio Code Amendment Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief background of how structure size is determined on any particular lot in the City and why staff has brought this code amendment before the Commission. He discussed neighborhood compatibility and what triggers a neighborhood compatibility analysis. He noted that currently there is no maximum structure size stated in the code, as structure size is determined by neighborhood compatibility. He explained what a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is and how it is calculated. He also showed how other cities in the South Bay area determine their structure size. He explained the alternatives identified in the staff report for the Commission to consider if they felt an FAR or some type of structure size limitation is warranted. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to staff's table showing how the different cities determine maximum structure size, and asked staff which city they felt was the most restrictive. Senior Planner Schonborn felt that Palos Verdes Estates is the most restrictive, followed by EI Segundo and Lomita. Commissioner Lewis stated that his reading of the staff report is that when this item goes before the City Council, staff will be recommending first to keep the status quo and second, if anything is changed, that neighborhood compatibility be kept in place with the addition of some type of FAR. He asked staff if that was a fair interpretation. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that is a fair assessment. However he added that he was not sure staff would necessarily recommend keeping the status quo. .He noted that staff would be flexible with a recommendation from the Commission to keep the neighborhood compatibility analysis along with adding some type of maximum structure Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 7 size. He explained that staff felt that neighborhood compatibility needs to be maintained, as it does much more than determining a structure size. Commissioner Emenhiser discussed the issue of structure size and how new houses in the City are slowly getting bigger and bigger. He also noted situations in mixed neighborhood where developers want to be compatible with the largest structures in the neighborhood. He questioned how the City can give homeowners and developers some guidance and objective standards to match the subjective standards in place now, which is neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Tetreault questioned if the City were to adopt some type of FAR to go along with neighborhood compatibility standards, if we would find that some of the applications that the City has approved would have been rejected as exceeding some type of reasonable FAR. He questioned if structure size is a problem or if this is a discussion to just do something different. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that in looking at past projects that were approved by the Planning Commission staff was not able to determine if some of these projects would not have been approved using the FAR. He explained that there are so many other factors to take into account, such as neighborhood compatibility and how much of the structure can be seen from the street, and staff was not able to say how the Commission would have decided if an FAR formula was used in its analysis. Commissioner Tetreault stated there are many lots in the City that are not pad lots, and asked staff how the City would deal with an FAR on a lot zoned RS-1 but the buildable area on the lot may be very small and equivalent in size to an RS-5 zoned lot. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the true FAR would look at the lot in its entirety and would not take out the unbuildable portion of the lot. He stated that the Commission could make adjustments to the FAR to consider the net lot area, which would exclude areas of the lot that cannot be built on. Chairman Gerstner felt that an FAR could be considered a very blunt tool that says generally on a certain size property you can build a structure of a certain size. However, neighborhood compatibility is a very sharp tool that can be used to really define the size of a structure. He felt this suggestion was to take a very sharp tool and improving it by adding a blunt part to it. He was not sure this would really help the City in its decision making. Commissioner Lewis saw three problems with the current neighborhood compatibility process. The first was the creep process, noting that with each large home approved it opens the door for an even larger home in the neighborhood to be approved in the future. The second problem has to do with being able to give home owners or developers, when they first approach the City, some objectives as to the extremes of the envelope that they can build. He noted the many times projects are brought before the Commission with a recommendation of denial by staff because of the size of the Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 8 structure. The third problem he saw with the neighborhood compatibility process is the cost. He noted that it is expensive for the applicant as well as expensive for the City in terms of staff time. He felt that the City owes it to an applicant that when they come to the Planning Department counter to give them some sort of certainty at the beginning of the process as to what the reasonable range is in regards to the size of a proposed building. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed that there needs to be a subjective standard, which is currently in place, and an objective standard so that the City can give potential developers some idea of what it possible to build in the selected neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault cautioned that by stating what the City thinks is the maximum structure size, it could give the community the impression that any time they are below that maximum that it is approved by right. He questioned whether in this situation an FAR would work against the City. Commissioner Leon stated that attempting to limit mansionization within Rancho Palos Verdes is a laudable goal, and trying to minimize the creep in terms of larger and larger houses on 100 percent of the lots is a good thing. However, he did not feel that floor area ratio was the right tool to use within this city. He suggested using some type of formula that is related to the average size house in the neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that alternative No. 4 in the staff report suggests modifying the current neighborhood compatibility standards and incorporate a FAR. He felt this allows for more balance when discussing structure size in a given neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis stated that he was not necessarily married to the term "floor area ratio". He would like to see some objective measure, and did not think that any analysis tied to the twenty closest homes helps the Commission in terms of the creep problem. A neighborhood compatibility analysis does not tell an applicant what can be built on a property sine the analysis is not done until after the application is submitted. Commissioner Knight stated that he would like to know, under the current regulations, if someone were to build out a piece of property to the absolute maximum, what that FAR ratio would be. He questioned if our current regulations already set a maximum size home, and asked staff if they had done any such analysis. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that staff has not done any such analysis. Commissioner Knight felt that an FAR would most likely work best on a flat, uniform lot or on a commercial lot. However, many lots in this City have unbuildable extreme slopes and are not uniform. In these instances the FAR would allow for a structure very much out of character with the existing homes. He felt that using an FAR would not be impossible but the City would have to impose a lot of special exceptions and look at all of the circumstances to make this a fair and equal process. Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 9 Commissioner Emenhiser suggested reporting to the City Council that the Planning Commission will look at alternative No. 4 in the staff report and that as part of the Commission's deliberations they will begin to track the floor area ratios. In that way, after possibly a year of this type of tracking, the Commission may have more and better information to continue this discussion and to make an ultimate recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Knight felt it would be helpful, when looking at a new project and discussing neighborhood compatibility, if staff could identify any larger than average homes in the neighborhood and explain why that structure is out of line with the average structure size in the neighborhood. Chairman Gerstner added that he would like to know which homes, since the introduction of neighborhood compatibility, have been built so that it could be easier to identify which neighborhoods actually have a problem. He felt this would allow the Commission to understand how neighborhood compatibility is failing in those neighborhoods and why. Senior Planner Schonborn felt that staff could compile a list of properties approved by the Planning Commission that went through the neighborhood compatibility review process and have been developed. Commissioner Tetreault noted that with the wide variety of neighborhoods in this City, a subjective review is very much needed, including looking at the totality of the application and the circumstances surrounding everything about the application. Vice Chairman Tomblin understood the comments that it would be very helpful to go to the Planning Department with a proposed project and have some guidance as to what can and can't be built on a lot in terms of structure size. However, he felt that while neighborhood compatibility may not be the best system, he felt that it has allowed neighborhoods within the City to define what they want their neighborhood to look like. He wasn't sure that the system currently used by the City is broken and needed to be fixed. Commissioner Lewis clarified that whatever recommendation is sent to the City Council he felt it was important that the Planning Commission maintain its ability to have discretion in terms of design elements, apparent bulk and mass, and articulation. In that way if a resident came before the Commission with a proposal that was within the actual square footage, but the Commission felt it was too bulky or too massive for that neighborhood, the Commission would still have the discretion to deny the project. However, he felt an objective element was also needed in the neighborhood compatibility process. He favored the idea of a field study showing photographs of past projects approved by the Planning Commission, as suggested by the Chairman. Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 10 Senior Planner Schonborn stated he would compile and email the information requested by the Commission, and suggested continuing the discussion to the meeting of January 11, 2011. The Commission agreed. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on November 9 2010 The Commission reviewed and approved the Pre-Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Planning commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 11