Loading...
PC MINS 20110208 Approved March 8, 011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING February 8, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:00 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Lewis, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioner Gerstner was excused, Vice Chairman Tetreault was absent. Also present were Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, Associate Planner Mikhail, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Pfost reported that at their February 1't meeting the City Council voted to initiate a code amendment for foliage in the front yard setback which will be brought to the Commission at a future meeting. He also reported that the Palos Verdes Marathon permit request will go directly to the City Council and will not be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Deputy Director Pfost distributed four items of correspondence related to agenda item No. 1, one item of correspondence related to agenda item No. 3, and ten items of correspondence related to agenda item No. 4. Commissioner Lewis reported that he had an email exchange with Sharon Yarber in regards to agenda item No, 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Helen Fung stated she is representing fifteen other families and discussed the upcoming Charter City initiative, She had several questions regarding the election and stated her opposition to the initiative. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00331): 6530 LaGarita Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. She noted that staff has concerns with bulk and mass in the rear portion of the second story addition from both neighbors on the east and west side of the property. She also noted that staff felt further articulation and reduction in height can be done at the front, sides, and rear of the proposed residence to minimize impacts to the neighbors, including view impact, privacy impact, and bulk and mass. She stated that staff was not able to make finding No. 5, a portion of finding No. 8, and finding No. 9. She showed several photographs taken from neighboring properties which showed the silhouette and the impact of the proposed addition. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the project given the further need for redesign. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Salpi Manoukian (project designer) stated the property owner has four small children and would like to expand his residence to put all of the bedrooms upstairs. She explained that her first submittal included second floor balconies, which she eliminated for the neighbor's privacy concerns and she has added more articulation to the second floor. She pointed out that there is over 8 feet in the setback area on one side of the residence and 7 feet on the other, as opposed to the typical 5 feet. She referred to the front elevation and explained the articulation, noting that she felt there was quite a bit of articulation involved in the design. She asked that the Planning Commission approve the project and then allow her to work with staff in developing the rest of the elevations based on the lower pitched roof. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Manoukian the ceiling heights for the first and second floor. Ms. Manoukian answered that the ceiling heights are now going to be 8 feet. Isacc Magalni (property owner) explained that he is hoping to have this addition approved, noting that he does have four children and he is planning to live in his home for a very long time. He stated that in speaking with the neighborhood, most were very supportive of the project Lindley Ruddick stated he and his wife are in agreement with staffs recommendation. He noted his written comments in regards to the proposed project have been submitted to staff and are a part of the staff report. He felt the project, as submitted, presents a Planning Commission Minutes February 8,2011 Page 2 massive and bulk appearance when viewed from all four sides, intrudes on the privacy of adjacent homes, and does impair some views. He pointed out that the largest houses in the neighborhood, with the exception of the house at 28070 Ella Road, are on significantly larger lots and are single story homes. Therefore their large floor area does not constitute any large mass or appearance thereof, or have privacy issues with adjoining properties. He also noted there are numerous examples of remodels and additions in the neighborhood that have expanded to larger floor areas while remaining single story. He asked that the Commission follow staffs recommendation and deny the proposed project. Diane Hayden stated she lives in the neighboring property to the west of the applicant. She noted her concerns with privacy to her residence. She also discussed the street trees in the neighborhood, explaining they have already been trimmed severely and there was the possibility they could be removed. She asked the Commission to keep that in mind in terms of impacts this addition will make to the neighborhood. She explained her concern was with the way the second story was being built out over the garage wing and how it would start to impinge into the open space of the ranch style houses. She noted that there are no other houses in the neighborhood that has built out over the garage wing. She hoped the Commission would take this into consideration when reviewing the bulk and mass and privacy issues. Commissioner Knight noted in the staff report staff was recommending either clearstory or opaque windows for the second story addition. He asked if this was something that would satisfy her concerns in terms of privacy. Ms. Hayden answered that she has not seen the revised plans, but based on staff s presentation of the side elevation, the only window that might be an issue is the small window on the second story. As long as that window is opaque she did not think it would be a problem. Commissioner Leon stated that the applicant noted the setbacks are several feet more than required, and asked Ms. Hayden if, with the silhouette in place, it felt like the house was setback farther or if it felt like the house was looming down on her property. Ms. Hayden explained that her experience with the silhouette was that everything came out beyond the main frame of the existing house. Paul Hayden stated he agrees with his wife's comments. He added that there is a significant privacy concern with the proposed large window at the rear of the house. He felt that unless the window is non-openable or is placed up high so that nobody can look out, he did not know how the privacy issue could be fixed. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Hayden if he would be satisfied if the window were made opaque, Planning Commission Minutes February B, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Hayden answered that an opaque window would certainly mitigate the privacy concerns, however there was still the privacy concerns when the window is opened. He also noted that if the current owner were to sell the house and move the new owners could easily replace that opaque window with a clear window. Steve Watson stated he owns the house directly to the east of the applicant, and very strongly opposes the proposed addition. He felt the proposed addition would cause an extreme intrusion onto his privacy and would block sunlight onto large portions of his house and yard. He also felt that this proposed addition will add quite a bit of noise to the neighborhood because of the way the house will be situated. He felt that his property value will be adversely affected with this proposed addition directly adjacent to his property. He also felt the proposed addition is too large and is inconsistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. He also felt the proposed addition will be to bulky and massive, and pointed out that there will only be 9 1/2 feet from roof to roof. He distributed photographs he took from his rear yard. He explained that he always thought the qualities in his neighborhood would be protected by the Code and Ordinances, however he now has a perception that the variances seem to be the rule and the Code seems to be the exception. He felt that if he had not raised issues and concerns against the Variance it would be adopted. Salpi Manoukian (in rebuttal) proposed planting trees on both sides of the property to mitigate the privacy issues. She also stated the windows would be opaque. In regards to the bulk and mass issues, she stated she would reduce the height of the roof to reduce the overall height of the building. She asked the Commission to define articulation, noting there is no guideline for her to follow in this regards. Chairman Tomblin noted a 90 day extension will be needed per the Permit Streamlining Act, and asked Ms. Manoukian if she and/or the property owner will agree to this 90 day extension. Ms. Manoukian agreed to the 90 day extension. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked, with the proposed changes to the structure height, would staff be able to make the findings to recommend approval of the project as the first two- story house in the neighborhood. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that originally she felt staff could make the findings and recommend approval with this change, however staff would now rather see the silhouette redone to show the revision in order to make sure all view impacts are resolved. Commissioner Knight felt that this proposed addition could be redesigned to minimize the impairment of views and the impacts to privacy. In terms of articulation, in reading the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines, articulation has to do with the upper portion Planning Commission Minutes February 8,2011 Page 4 of the home and not the lower portion. He felt that this design has the articulation reversed. He stated he was in favor of continuing this item to allow the architect and the homeowner the opportunity to redesign the project to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Knight's comments and was also in favor of a continuance to allow for a redesign of the project. Commissioner Lewis stated he agreed with staffs report and could not make the necessary findings in order to approve the proposed project. He agreed that the public hearing should be continued to allow for a redesign. Chairman Tomblin also agreed with the staff report, noting his concerns with privacy, views, and articulation. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of March 22, 2011 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the Commission's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). 2. Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Grading Permit (Case No.,ZON201 0- 00296): 5504 Crestridge Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report. She explained the scope of the proposed project and the need for the various permits. She also showed a rendering of the project. She stated staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight was concerned with the glare that may be produced from the proposed fagade treatment, and asked if there any type of review period included in staffs recommendations. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff did not recommend a six-month review as the proposed additions and remodel is fairly minor. She added that the applicant did put three or four panels up on the east side of the building and staff didn't see any issues, Chairman Tomblin asked staff how the proposed signs will be illuminated. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the proposed signs will be backlit. She also referred to condition No. 15 in the staff report, which calls for staff to do a review of the sign lighting. She noted that the applicant is not proposing any change to the parking lot lighting. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 8,2011 Page 5 Craiq Knickerbocker (Project Manager) stated that he is in agreement with the staff report and its recommendations. In regards to the fagade, he explained that he's done everything recommended by staff and doesn't feel there will be any problem. He explained that this project is virtually the same project that the Commission approved a couple of years ago, and asked the Commission to approve the proposed project. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Knickerbocker to describe the outside lighting of the buildings. Mr. Knickerbocker referred that question to the architect, but noted that they have done everything possible to minimize the lighting on the property. Ed Beall (architect) explained that in regards to the signage, the lighting is behind the lettering. There is additional lighting in the entrances and there are sconces on either side of the various doorways. He stated that the color will definitely be non-reflective. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staffs recommendation by adopting PC Resolution 2011-06, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). 3. Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00413): 30148 Cartier Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the property and explaining the scope of the new proposed single family residence. He stated that staff believes all of the required findings for the approval of the approval of the requested grading permit can be made, and staff believes the proposed residence will be compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood. He noted that no comments were received by staff as a result of mailed published notices or as a result of the silhouette. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing and there being no speakers, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis commented on a letter received on the project from Sunshine, noting that it is not in the power of the Planning Commission to place the type of restrictions she is suggesting on property in the City. Commissioner Leon stated he was happy to see larger setbacks on this project that are more in keeping with the scale of the house than is seen in other neighborhoods. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-07, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). 4. Code Amendment for Temporary Sign Permits (Case No. ZON201 1-00007) Planning Connrn�ssion Minutes February 8,2011 Page 6 Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining that in 2008 the City Council approved three locations in the City to be used for the display of temporary banner signs. However, once banners began to be displayed there were several concerns that were brought to staff's attention. Due to the concerns associated with each location and the unavailability of other viable public right-of-way locations, the City Council initiated a code amendment at the request of staff to eliminate the existing program and to suspend the issuance of temporary sign permits while this code amendment is being processed. She stated that staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to staff to be forwarded to the City Council for final decision. Commissioner Lewis asked about the signs placed at the corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Silver Spur and if that location is part of the sign program. Assistant Planner Harwell explained that the fence at that corner is on private property and any signs posted are a matter for code enforcement staff. Commissioner Emenhiser asked, if the City were to not allow signs in the current approved locations, where would these signs be allowed. Deputy Director Pfost answered that signs that are non-city sponsored events would not be permitted in the City's public rights-of-way. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned if eliminating this program would then encourage people to put up signs wherever they wanted to. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that may happen, but it would then be a code enforcement issue. Commissioner Leon asked staff to review the signs allowed on private property without a permit. Assistant Planner Harwell read the Municipal Code section regarding signs on private property, explaining the types of signs, the size, and the location allowed on the property, Commissioner Knight asked if public right-of-way also includes public land. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that it does include public land. Commissioner Knight felt that public right-of-way is different from public land, referencing the city owned land above Portuguese Bend. Planning Commission Minutes February 8,2011 Page 7 Deputy Director Pfost stated that would be considered public land and/or public right-of- way that the City could use to put city sponsored event signs on subject to approval from the City Manager's office. Commissioner Knight asked if language should be included in this Resolution that says public lands and/or public right-of-way, Deputy Director Pfost explained that issue was brought up at the City Council meeting during the discussions during the code amendment initiation request, noting the discussion regarding this issue in the staff report. He stated the Recreation and Parks Department is putting together a policy to bring before the City Council that will address that issue. Commissioner Knight asked staff how Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates handles this type of sign issue. Assistant Planner Harwell explained that Rolling Hills Estates has several locations they allow signs, but it is much more regulated in terms of color and size. She noted that Palos Verdes Estates is also considering amending their sign program in a way that is similar to this proposal. Commissioner Knight noted that this code amendment would not affect signs on private property and therefore felt that Section 2 of the Resolution should be clarified to say the elimination of controversial signs on public property. He also noted the reference to Section D-4 in the language in Section C, subsection 6 of the Resolution needs to be eliminated. Commissioner Leon asked staff if there has ever been a situation where a charitable organization has tried to put up an objectionable sign. Deputy Director Pfost was not aware of any such situation. Commissioner Leon asked if the current program costs the City money in terms of staff time to administer the program. Deputy Director Pfost answered that it costs the City money in terms of staff time to issue the permit, but that is relatively insignificant. Commissioner Leon questioned if signs in the public right-of-way constitute a problem that needs to be fixed. Commissioner Lewis asked if staff made any effort to locate new potential sites in which to place signs. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that staff had previously done a city-wide review in regards to signs, and these were the three best locations identified by staff. Planning Commission Minutes February 8,2011 Page 8 Commissioner Lewis noted the entrance to City Hall has a large area, and asked if that would be a good site for signs. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that the City Hall entrance could be a potential site. She noted that because the City regularly uses that area to advertise City sponsored events staff felt there may be an issue with too many signs at the location. She explained staff is trying to restrict the number of signs at each location. Chairman Tomblin explained that he has been and is currently involved in several organizations that put signs up in this city and other cities on the peninsula. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis felt the ability of the City to allow non-profit organizations to communicate with the residents is a strong, important purpose that outweighs some of the other interests, such as potential difficulty of enforcement and the unsightliness of the site, Commissioner Lewis moved to not accept staff's recommendations and instead retain the existing mechanism to allow non-profit organizations to obtain a permit and post signs at Hesse Park, the entrance to City Hall, and at corner of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South. Further, staff is directed to find additional locations in the City where signs may be posted, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Lewis' assessment and that staff's recommendation is on the road to solving a problem that doesn't exist. He was more concerned with the different organizations ability to communicate with the residents than he was about some other groups whose language some may not prefer to see having a sign. He felt the public good would best be expressed by continuing to allow the signs. Commissioner Leon stated he supported the motion, adding that it may be beneficial to add language to the motion to direct staff to look at some aesthetic standards similar to what Rolling Hills Estates has in terms of color, font, and size of banner. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to add that staff look into aesthetic standards for the banners in terms of color, size, and font, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Knight understood the concerns raised in the staff report, however he also is supportive of the various organizations having: the opportunity to notify the community of events and fundraisers. He stated he was in support of the motion, noting that he is not aware of any major issues or problems caused by the signs. Planning Commission Minutes February 8,2011 Page 9 Chairman Tomblin stated he is also in support of the motion. He explained that in Rolling Hills Estates they allow white signs with green letters and the sign design must first be submitted to the City for approval, Secondly, Rolling Hills Estates will only allow a banner of a certain dimension and that sign is attached to a built frame that includes a plywood type backing. He noted that the City also limits the number of signs at any given location. In stated he would like to see an expansion of locations for signs, adding that he did not think Hesse Park was the best location for signs as the signs are placed on a hill and appear much larger and more intrusive. Commissioner Lewis added that Hesse Park and the entrance to City Hall are not ideal locations, as they do imply a co-sponsorship or approval of some of these events. He therefore would be open to eliminating these two sites if staff were able to find better locations. He discussed the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive, and asked staff if that fenced area is City property or private property. He felt that if it is City property, it might be a potential site for signs Deputy Director Pfost was not sure if that area was City or private property and that staff would research the area. The motion to not accept staff's recommendation and to retain the existing sign program, with the direction to staff to locate additional or alternative sign sites and the recommendation to adopt a uniform sign program that would require specific font style, size and sign colors was approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of January 11, 2011 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Lewis abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 22, 2011 The Commission approved the pre-agenda without objection. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 8,2011 Page 10