Loading...
PC MINS 20110111 Approved February 8, 2011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 11, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:11 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioners Lewis and Tetreault were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Mikhail, Associate Planner Trester, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their December 21, 2010 meeting the City Council temporarily suspended the City's entitlement process for the proposed Annenberg Project and directed staff to work with the Annenberg Foundation to submit a formal Consistency Application to the State and National Park Service. Director Rojas distributed five items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and an updated Table for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Appeal of View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP2008-00031)° Via Cambron /Via Collado / Berry Hill Drive Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the appeal before the Planning Commission. She noted changes made by staff to the draft Resolution. She also noted that staff had previously informed the appellants that any interested parties may adopt a tree, however upon further research of the Code it was found that only certain residents could adopt the tree. She stated staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to adopt the draft Resolution and conditions of approval. Commissioner Leon questioned the language of Municipal Code Section that specifies who can adopt trees, and asked staff for clarification. Associate Planner Trester referred to Section 17.76.100(F)(1) which states that any parties notified pursuant to subsection (G)(1) may adopt the tree. Commissioner Leon noted that the language states certain people may enter into an agreement and does not say that nobody else can enter into the agreement. Director Rojas stated that staff is relaying its interpretation of the Code and the Planning Commission may have a different interpretation they may want to pursue. Commissioner Leon asked staff if there would be a problem if someone other than one of the ten closest residents were to volunteer to adopt the tree. Director Rojas answered that it may be a problem if the applicants were to raise a concern, as the City would not be following the Code requirements on who is eligible to adopt a tree. Chairman Gerstner asked if there are any ramifications from the fact that some residents who should have been notified in the original noticing were not noticed. Director Rojas explained that since the Planning Commission was providing a future deadline for adoption that staff did not believe so, as long as staff provides them with notification that they are eligible to adopt certain trees. Nancy Parsons stated that at least thirteen residents were not noticed regarding the original City Tree Permit hearing in May 2009. She noted that the City feels that this will not be a problem, as these residents will be sent a notice and allowed to adopt a tree, she felt it is too late. She noted that many of these residents have not been kept apprised of the situation with the trees and now are being told they have three weeks to decide whether or not they want to make a long term financial commitment to adopt a tree. She felt many potential adopters have been excluded at the eleventh hour and it places a much greater burden on the remainder. She referred to tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 2 and noted the draft Resolution states these trees are located towards the center of the view from 7284 Berry Hill Drive. She disagreed, stating these trees are located nowhere near the center of the view and are located at the same degree of the periphery as the other properties from which they were previously excluded. She also noted that the top of the trees in staffs photograph are not actually the subject trees, but rather the trees located across the street. She felt that tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 should be excluded as they were in the first Resolution, or if they are not excluded the City should lace them and leave them on the normal grid trimming cycle, with no adoption requirement. She asked if the City can justify the removal of the trees for so little gain. Finally, she showed a picture taken on January 10th of a great blue heron witting at the top of tree No. 2. Commissioner Leon understood there have been problems with the noticing, and asked Ms. Parsons if she had a suggested solution to these problems. Ms. Parsons believed the original Resolution, which did not require adoption of tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3, should be the Resolution adopted by the Commission. She noted that if tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are eliminated from the adoption she will be able to adopt other trees on Via Cambron and Via Collado. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted that at the last meeting the Commission agreed that tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 should be included in this application. He asked Ms. Parsons about the suggestion that more time be allowed to help find others who may want to adopt the trees. Ms. Parsons did not know if the extra time would help, as she felt it was like bring people into something at the eleventh hour that has been going on for several months. She added that it was her understanding that even though the Planning Commission had made a decision to include tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 that decision could be changed since the public hearing was continued. Mike O'Sullivan noted that he received an email from staff explaining only a limited number of residents are allowed to adopt a City tree, and even though he and his wife received a Final Notice of Decision and are appellants in this case, they are excluded from adopting a tree, as are the neighbors who signed the May 2009 petition to save the trees and the neighbors who contributed to the appeal fee. He felt that staff is determined to interpret every guideline in a way most conducive to removing trees. He stated that he has reviewed the minutes of the City Council meeting in which these guidelines were adopted, and felt that it was clear that what was visualized was the case of the single tree. He stated this situation involves ten trees, close together so that the nearest neighbors to the trees overlap, and a strict interpretation of the code precludes most of the neighbors from adopting, even though the entire neighborhood is affected. He felt that common sense is called for in this case. He asked the Commission to reconsider their last decision and fully instate the April Resolution. He also asked the Commission to broaden the list for those eligible to adopt trees to include the Hoskins and all other Via Cambron neighbors who received later notification. Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 3 Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff to explain how they determined who could adopt each tree based on their interpretation of the code. Director Rojas read the requirement from the code and showed on an aerial photograph where these properties are located and which properties were eligible to adopt specific trees. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. O'Sullivan, irrespective of how the eligibility is determined, are there residents who are ready to adopt a tree and the only thing holding them back is they are not eligible according to staff's interpretation of the Code. Mr. O'Sullivan answered that was correct, showing on staff's Tree Adoption Eligibility Map the location of his home and the Hoskins' residence, both of whom are willing to adopt one or more trees. He added that he does not know if there are residents are Via Collado or Berry Hill Drive who are ready to adopt a tree. He stated that there are at least four parties on Via Cambron that have been excluded by staffs interpretation that have offered to adopt a tree. Marjorie Carter stated that when it comes time to trim the trees they want to be notified in a timely manner, not the day before the trimming. She asked that the City Arborist be present during the trimming as well as a member of city staff to supervise the trimming. She asked that a biologist check the trees, noting that they have shown the picture of the heron in the tree and she also has seen hawks flying in and out of the trees. She also asked that any time a question or request is taken to the City Attorney she would like to see her answer and rationale for that answer on paper. She noted that the City is going to pay for the initial tree trimming, but asked if they would also pay for the second trimming if it is necessary. She felt this was fair since it was the City who allowed the additional applicants onto the application. Barbara O'Sullivan felt that there are problems with this process. She felt it is full of inequities and is costly in time, stress, and dollars for everyone involved. She asked how this process could be a good approach to civic policy and questioned the effect this approach has on neighborhood relations. She stated that the argument is that it is too costly to maintain city trees. She disagreed, stating it is the responsibility of the city government to maintain roads, parks, and the infrastructure, which includes parkway trees. She felt that if city trees infringe upon ones protected views, take care of it in a reasonable way. She thought it would be interesting to know how much this permit application has cost the city in the past two years. Robert Hoskins had an issue with staff's interpretation of Municipal Code Section 17.76.100.G.1, which discusses notification, and questioned the interpretation of adjacent properties. He felt that abutting properties should be on the same side of the street, and therefore his property should be included in the ten closest homes. He stated he would like to adopt a tree but is not on the list of eligible adopters, but has Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 4 been receiving correspondence as an interested party, and asked if asked the Commission to include 30435 Via Cambron as an eligible adoptee. Dale Levander stated he is in support of Mrs. O'Sullivan's comments, adding that everyone seems to have lost sight of what really matters in this case and has been too caught up in legalities rather than common sense. He felt that the Planning Commission should show some leadership to the City Council on what is really needed. Cindy Hall discussed various birds of prey that use tall trees to nest, noting that the heron was seen just yesterday in one of the tall pines. She asked if staff has contacted any of the agencies regarding the birds and possible nesting in the trees. She also discussed the trimming of the trees and that the nesting of the birds should be kept in mind when the trees are trimmed. Commissioner Knight noted that one of the conditions of approval is for a biologist to assess if there are any natural nests in the trees. He asked Ms. Hall to give to staff any observations she may have so staff can pass that information on to the biologist. Kathy Liberman stated she lives on Berry Hill Drive, and while she is not an applicant in this case, she and her husband did apply for view restoration approximately seven years ago. She noted that trees 5 through 10 are very much centered in the middle of her view and block the view of Catalina Island almost exclusively. She stated tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 do not affect her view. She felt that trimming the trees and having them adopted is a very reasonable compromise, adding that it is only fair to allow any additional neighbor the opportunity to adopt the trees. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they had information about the View Restoration Permit and if this permit addressed the same trees as the current application before the Commission. Associate Planner Trester answered that staff has reviewed this View Restoration Permit in which it was determined that raising the crown of these particular trees restored the view from the Liberman property. She added that when this permit was processed several years ago the City was still doing the trimming of the trees. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if it was their intention, when trimming the trees per this current resolution, to also fulfill the trimming needs of this past permit. Associate Planner Trester stated she would review the required trimming for that view restoration permit. She added that the City still does the trimming on these older cases, and if the Libermans feel the tree needs to be trimmed and is out of compliance, they call the City and the tree is added to the maintenance list. Chairman Gerstner asked if maintaining the raised crown would then become the responsibility of the tree adopter. Planning commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 5 Director Rojas answered that once the trees have been trimmed Mrs. Liberman can determine if the trees still need to have the crowns raised. If so, the City will continue that process. Commissioner Leon asked that in future city tree permit cases before the Planning Commission any prior view restoration actions taken on the same trees be discussed in the staff report. Jody Wiggins submitted photos taken from the back porch of her home at 7321 Berry Hill Drive. She stated the tree Nos. 4, 6, 8, and 10 severely block her view of the ocean. In regards to the hawk sighting, she stated that each morning, afternoon and evening since the December 14th meeting she has looked with her binoculars to try to see a hawk. As of this evening she has not seen a hawk. She questioned if the tree in the submitted photograph with the heron was the same tree in question. She stated that whatever decision is made by the Planning Commission should be accepted and lived with respectfully. Larry Marinovich (applicant) stated that the trees in the application very significantly block his ocean view. He noted that this process started two years ago, and had he any idea of the time and stress involved he probably wouldn't have agreed to reevaluation. He felt he has tried to work with the neighbors but didn't think they cared anything about the loss of his view. Jim Morrison (applicant) stated that when you drive onto Berry Hill Drive you do not see three majestic trees, but rather three trunks and a lot of debris that plugs the storm drain. He felt that lacing the trees would at least lessen the amount of debris. He stated that he has had two city trees removed, and acknowledged that it is painful. He hoped that if the trees are trimmed that the trimming directions are very specific. Commissioner Knight asked staff the rationalization for allowing the one abutting property owner to have the veto power over whether or not a tree can be adopted as opposed to a neighborhood wanting to adopt a tree. Associate Planner Trester answered that when the Ordinance was amended the City Council discussed the issue of a tree being adopted and the resident most affected by that tree having no say in whether or not that tree would be adopted. Commissioner Knight stated he read the information from the City Attorney regarding the use of WCA, and asked if language should be added in the conditions of approval that if a resident contracts with WCA that such contract, including costs, is strictly between the resident and WCA with no City involvement. Director Rojas thought such language would be helpful. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if expanding out the list of potential tree adopters was something that was within the purview of the Planning Commission. Planning commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 6 Director Rojas explained that the Code says the ten closest residents to the tree are eligible to adopt the tree. However, he noted that there is some interpretation as to what that means and staff is open to different interpretations to try to placate some of the issues. He added that, however the ten closest homes is determined, the Commission cannot allow someone that is not within the ten closest homes to adopt a tree since that is not what the Ordinance says. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if there was anything in the Ordinance that would prevent the Commission from extending the time period to help the residents find someone to adopt the trees. Director Rojas answered that the Planning Commission can extend the time if the choose to do so. Chairman Gerstner stated that the Code says take the trees out and staff and the Commission have bent over backwards to try to find ways to accommodate not just taking the trees out while maintaining the view that the applicants requested. He felt that the Commission's decision is reasonable since it creates many steps, including trimming the trees, reevaluating the view after the trees have been trimmed, and directing either further trimming or removal if necessary. In order to maintain the trees, the City has opened up the adoption process. He interpreted the ten closest homes to include the residents at the end of the cul-de-sac, especially since there are so many trees and the burden is quite high for the residents immediately adjacent to the trees. If the Commission were to expand the area and someone were to decide the Commission's interpretation was too far against the Code, they could appeal the decision to the City Council and let the City Council make the final decision. He did not think the deadline needed to be expanded. He felt it was important to get these trees trimmed now before the seasons change and we're into the heat of the summer. Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt the Resolution as presented, with the amendment that the residents at the cul-de-sac on Via Cambron be added to the list of eligible tree adopters, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Director Rojas stated that in the Resolution staff will list the specific addresses of those eligible to adopt trees. Commissioner Knight asked that the following language be added as a condition of approval and be included in the motion: If the resident adopter contracts with WCA that such contract, including costs, is exclusive between the resident and WCA with no City involvement. Chairman Gerstner agreed to amend his motion to add the language, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The motion adopting PC Resolution 2011-01, thereby adopting the Resolution as amended, was approved. (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 7 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Extreme Slope Permit (Case No 2ON2009-00170): 51 Rockinghorse Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a background of the project and the need for the various permits. She explained the current revised plan and how it differed from the original submittal. She noted that the City Geologist has reviewed and approved the current revised scope of work. She stated staff was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Extreme Slope Permit. Commissioner Knight stated that American Geotechnical prepared a report for one of the neighbors and asked if the City Geologist reviewed that report. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the City Geologist did not review that report. Frank Colaruotolo (applicant) stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Colaruotolo if he was in agreement with staff's recommendations. Mr. Colaruotolo answered that he was in agreement with staff's recommendations. Rich Telford stated he is an architect representing the Mr. and Mrs. Graf at 66 Rockinghorse Road. He stated that he and the Graf s are in support of the project as currently submitted, noting their concerns had been in regards to safety. Commissioner Leon stated that it was his understanding from the staff report that the grade that is abutting the retaining wall that affects the Grafs will remain the same. He asked Mr. Telford if that is also his understanding. Mr. Telford answered that was his understanding. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt PC Resolution 2011-02 thereby approving the Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Extreme Slope Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (4-1) with Vice Chairman Tomblin dissenting. 3. Floor to Area Ration (FAR) Review Commissioner Emenhiser questioned if it would be better to table or continue this item to a meeting when Commissioner Lewis is in attendance. The Commissioner agreed to discuss the item and continue the item to a future date so Commissioner Lewis can give his input. Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 8 Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining that since the last hearing on this item staff has provided the Commission with a list of properties where structures were constructed since November 2002 where the Commission had a say on it and a neighborhood compatibility component was included. He also noted that additional information with regards to lot coverage was distributed as part of late correspondence. He reviewed this information with the Planning Commission. He noted the large range on the chart and stated that this bolsters staffs assessment that there is no governing theme or pattern as far as structure size in different zoning districts. He also explained that staff did not feel, in looking at the properties and the processing of applications over the years, that there was a huge issue with development being out of control. Staff also feels that the neighborhood compatibility process does allow for property owners to improve their properties without being limited to structure size and allows the City and staff the flexibility to assess bulk and mass issues. He stated that staff was recommending the Commission discuss the information presented and ultimately direct staff to proceed down the appropriate path. He also noted a chart distributed to the Commission that was prepared by Commissioners Knight and Leon. Commissioner Leon explained that he and Commissioner Knight drove by as many houses on the list as possible and tried to determine if the house looks big for the neighborhood or if it looks consistent with the neighborhood, and how that compare to lot size. He explained they were looking for correlation between a house that has a small lot coverage and if the house looked small on the lot, and a house with large lot coverage if they all looked big on the lot. He stated that their conclusion is there is no correlation, and therefore a numeric solution may not exist. He noted that what seemed to make houses look too big were ones that did not have sufficient side yard setbacks. Commissioner Knight referred to staffs chart and asked if the structure size includes the garage and accessory structures. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the number is inclusive of the garage and accessory structures. Commissioner Leon stated that the neighborhood compatibility process is relatively undefined in terms of the envelope that an owner or developer can use for developing their house. He asked staff if they have received complaints from owners or developers in regards to the lack of definition in this regards. Director Rojas explained that he occasionally will meet with frustrated applicants, and that their frustration stems from the lack of a defined number that they can use in their development. Senior Planner Schonborn added that while there may be some frustration, the planning staff is extremely helpful to applicants while they go through the neighborhood compatibility process. He also noted that this chart does not encompass all neighborhood compatibility decisions only new houses or tear down and rebuilds. Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 9 Director Rojas agreed and explained that in the past there was more frustration, which prompted the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. He explained that the Handbook helps explain the process and guide the applicant, and for the most part has helped the applicant a great deal. He also noted that most decisions on projects that trigger neighborhood compatibility are made at the Director level and only a small percentage of these projects are heard by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue this item to the meeting of January 25, 2011. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010- 00328): 30629 Palos Verdes Drive East Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various permit applications. She stated, given that most of the addition is limited to the existing balcony line and the only addition outside of the balcony line is two small areas totally 72 square feet, staff feels the overall bulk and mass of the structure will change very little. She also noted that the height of the residence is not changing and staff determined there will be no view impacts or privacy caused by the proposed addition. She stated staff was able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Tomblin and Commissioner Emenhiser noted that they did not have plans included with their staff reports, while the remaining Commissioners had only an electronic version of the plans. The Commissioners felt these electronic plans were very difficult to read and understand the scope of the project. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that the Commission has approved large additions such as this in the past, however the Commission has requested more articulation to soften the bulk and mass of the addition. He stated that because of the unclear plans he was not comfortable making a decision on this project at this time. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Gianni Kanounii stated he is the designer of the proposed addition. He walked the Commission through the proposed addition, explaining the only addition is on the first floor where the walls have been extended. He explained that on the second floor the area is existing and he has only changed the fagade of the windows. He stated that he tried to create a Tuscany villa feel to the residence and also felt that the house will tie in very well with the landscape. He stated that the entire residence is very well thought out to be part of the community. Chairman Gerstner explained to Mr. Kanounji that the Planning Commissioners challenge is trying to understand the massing at the front of the house from the Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 10 documents that were provided. He pointed out that from the way the elevation is rendered, it's very deceiving and probably looks worse than it is. This may lead the Commission to make a decision they don't want to make. Mr. Kanounji stated he could make a better rendering if that would help the Commission. Chairman Gerstner felt a 3-D rendering would be helpful, if possible. He asked Mr. Kanounji if he could have a rendering by the next meeting. Mr. Kanounji answered that he could have a rendering available by the next meeting. Commissioner Knight referred to a page of the electronic plans, and asked Mr. Kanounji if the garage is attached or detached from the house, as he could not tell from the plans. Mr. Kanounji answered that the garage is detached, explaining that there is a covered walkway from the garage to the inside of the house. Director Rojas explained that staff considers this a detached garage, and explained that the Code would allow the structure to be connected to the house by the roof or breezeway but still be considered detached. Chairman Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to the January 25, 2011 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Continued without objection. 5. General Plan Update — Review of the Circulation Element and the House and Social Services Element Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, beginning with the Circulation Element. He reviewed the comments added in the element, briefly explaining the reason for the proposed changes. The Commissioners added some clarifications and the Deputy Director noted these would be incorporated into the element. Deputy Director Pfost discussed the Housing and Social Services Element, noting that at the last meeting the Commission had two comments regarding the element. He noted how those comments were incorporated into the element. With that, Deputy Director Pfost stated that the Planning Commission has now reviewed all of the elements of the General Plan. He will bring the document back to the Commission as one cohesive document with a glossary section, maps, and graphics included. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Minutes of November 23, 2010 Planning commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 11 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (4-0-1) with Chairman Gerstner abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of January 25 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and unanimously approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 12