Loading...
PC MINS 20110614 Approved July 12V, 01 1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:20 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioners Knight, Leon, and Lewis were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Tomblin suggested that, since three Commissioners are not present, agenda item No, 5 be continued to allow for these three Commissioners to have input in the discussion. The Commission unanimously agreed and approved the Agenda as amended. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their upcoming meeting the City Council will consider a code amendment request to allow ancillary residential uses in commercial districts and will also receive a status update on the proposed Annenberg project, Director Rojas distributed four items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1, one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 3, and 2 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 4, Commissioner Emenhiser reported that he had a conversation with a resident related to agenda item No. 4 and he encouraged this resident to write a letter to the Commission expressing his concerns. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-aclenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00083): 30800 Palos Verdes Drive West Director Rojas presented the staff report, recapping the Planning Commission's discussion of the item at their last meeting and explaining that since the last meeting staff has received an extension request from the College and given that, staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to the August 9th meeting. He noted that there are no speaker slips submitted and that the Commission received late correspondence for the item. Commissioner Gerstner stated that since there isn't any new information to hear or discuss, that the public hearing should be continued as recommended by staff. George Zuqsmith expressed concern, noting that at the previous meeting Mr. Reeves stated he did not have the authority to grant an extension, however days after the meeting Mr. Reeves sent an email to staff requesting the extension. He questioned if Mr. Reeves has the authority to request the extension and if staff can accept the request from Mr. Reeves. Director Rojas explained that Mr. Reeves is a representative of the college and therefore has standing to request an extension. He stated that staffs interpretation at the last meeting was that Mr. Reeves most likely wanted to check with Dr. Brophy before requesting the extension, Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to August 9, 2011 as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Approved without objection. 2. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00293) Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining how the code currently addresses fences, walls and hedges in the front yard setback of a property and how the City Council authorized staff to go ahead with a staff initiated code amendment to potentially revise the current hedge height regulations in the code. She explained that during the analysis the Public Works Department found that any fence or hedge over 30 inches in height within the front yard setback may cause a safety hazard by limiting the visibility of the motorist existing the driveway, of the view of the pedestrians using the sidewalk, or the vehicles on the street. Based on this information, staff recommended that the City Council authorize staff to withdraw this application. However, the City Council felt there are instances where hedges above 42 inches could be allowed on Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 2 some properties and directed staff to explore other alternatives. Therefore, staff has suggested a new permit process to allow hedges over 42 inches in the front yard setback as outlined in the staff report. She stated that staff believes the proposed code amendment is consistent with the City Council's direction and is recommending approval. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they know the exact basis on which Public Works will use to analyze whether or not there will be a safety risk in allowing a hedge over 42 inches in the front yard setback. Assistant Planner Kim replied that staff does not know the exact details of the Public Works analysis, however there currently is a method in place which is used by Public Works to look at traffic visibility within the intersection visibility triangle area, and Public Works staff has indicated they will use the same method to analyze hedges in the front yard setback. Commissioner Gerstner stated he would want to know what that method is and he would prefer that the method be written in the code so that a resident applying for this would have a basis to understand what the criteria are under which they can have hedges in their front yard. He felt there could be problems if the criteria are applied in a subjective manner. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they had any idea how many properties in the city have hedges over 42 inches in their front yard setback, and questioned if this is a solution in search of a problem, Director Rojas did not know the answer but estimated it is likely more than ten percent of the properties in the city. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked how this ordinance would be used. He asked if it was envisioned that a resident that wants a tall hedge might come to the city to try to obtain approval for that hedge or would it be something that would happen in code enforcement where someone would be cited and then given the option to apply to have the taller hedge remain. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the idea is that the ordinance would apply to both situations. Staff acknowledges that there are many properties in the city with hedges over 42 inches and height and would like to have this application available so that these residents can come to the City to apply to keep their hedge. In regards to code enforcement issues, once a complaint is received and verified code enforcement staff would sent the resident a letter giving them the option of trimming the hedge to 42 inches or submitting an application to allow the hedge at a height higher than 42 inches. Director Rojas explained that if the recommendation goes forward to the City Council and the Ordinance is enacted, permits will be needed for new hedges or to legalize existing hedges over 42 inches, He added that staff feels most applications will be Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 3 after-the-fact applications for hedges already in place. He stated that hedges already in place will be subject to after-the-fact application fees. Therefore, he felt there is a policy issue for the City Council to decide as to whether or not they want to grandfather in any hedges or perhaps not charge an after-the-fact fee for the application a certain time period. Commissioner Gerstner asked why staff didn't pursue an ordinance that does not limit the height of the hedge in the front yard setback to the extent they don't impair visibility or views. Director Rojas explained that the code is more restrictive in regards to fences, walls, and hedges in the front setback in order to attempt to maintain the openness from the street and discourage the fortified look that taller fences, walls and hedges in the front yard setback may create. Chairman Tomblin asked staff issues prompted staff to recommend this change to the code. Director Rojas explained that staff receives complaints about hedges and the hedge owners have pointed out that these types of hedges exist all over the City. Staff felt that if there is a situation which is prevalent throughout the City, and there are very few complaints, that the section of the Code should be looked at and reconsidered. Commissioner Gerstner asked if one could have a bush or a tree over 42 inches in the front yard setback. Director Rojas answered that a bush or tree over 42 inches is allowed in the front yard setback, Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Mark Scrivens stated he lives on Jaybrook Drive, which is a very narrow street with poor visibility and agreed with the concerns regarding safety. He felt that allowing the hedges to grow over 42 inches would be detrimental to the area, noting there are blind curves on the street. He was also concerned with the aesthetics of allowing 6 foot hedges in the front yard setback, noting on smaller streets such as his that the properties would begin to look like mini compounds. He was further concerned about view issues and whether or not the 6 foot hedges would cause view impairments to neighboring properties. He noted his concerns with the subjectivity of proposed changes to the code. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault appreciated the issues that prompted the City Council to task staff to look into this issue. He felt that the current 42 inch height limit is arbitrary, but any height chosen must be looked at in terms of aesthetics and public safety, To Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 4 develop any type of formula to determine hedge height which would take all of the issues of public safety and aesthetics into account would be extremely difficult, He suggested looking at the issue in a different way, such as allowing a hedge up to 42 inches by right, allowing no hedge over six feet in height, and anything in between those two heights would be subject to a view analysis, similar to those done in view restoration or preservation cases, Commissioner Emenhiser felt that the proposed code amendment creates an undue burden on both the enforcement and the residents of the city. He was also concerned about the fees for this proposed permit. He stated he may be able to support the change if it applied to a 10 foot setback rather than a 20 foot setback. Commissioner Gerstner felt it would be very helpful if staff could define the visibility triangle being discussed when one is backing out of the driveway. He also indicated that he would be supportive of hedges up to 42 inches in height in the front yard setback by right and might be in support of higher hedges in the front yard for privacy issues. He would also like to see a process developed that would decrease the bureaucracy as much as possible. Vice Chairman Tetreault suggested that, instead of using a mathematical calculation that the average person would not understand, determine a particular position in a person's driveway to see a person of a particular height at a particular distance down the sidewalk and use those parameters when looking at safety issues. Director Rojas stated that staff will coordinate with the Public Works Department and discuss these issues with the City Attorney and suggested staff bring the item back to the Planning Commission at their July 26th meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00016): 30439 Calle de Suenos Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation, minor exception permit, and site plan review applications. He stated that with respect to the height variation, the staff report discusses the nine required findings. Staff believes several of the findings can be made for the project, however there are several findings that cannot be made, He noted that two property owners had submitted comments regarding view impairment from their property and discussed the view impairment caused by the proposed addition, as well as the cumulative view impact, In discussing neighborhood compatibility, he noted that the proposed structure appears boxy and there are areas of unbroken two story fagade. Staff believes the project design could be modified to present a less boxy appearance. He stated that staff is recommending denial of the project without prejudice, as staff Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 5 believes the design might be modified to address the issues of view impairment and neighborhood compatibility such that all of the required height variation findings can be made. Since the approval of the Minor Exception Permit and Site Plan Review are contingent upon the concurrent approval of the Height Variation this would allow the entire project to be approved in some modified form in the future. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Dr. Khaia (owner) explained he went to the neighbor's house that has a concern with view impairment. He noted that his house is at least five houses away from this residence. He noted that there is only a small view of the horizon from this residence, and did not think there was a significant view impairment. Marcoz Anaya (architect) stated that he is interested in feedback from the Planning Commission on this project and is open to suggestions on making this project more in conformance with City requirements. Chairman Tomblin explained his concern with the design in that everything comes right out to the building envelope and bringing it in a bit could add some definition and help minimize the bulk and mass. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the characteristics and style of the design contribute to the appearance of the bulk and mass. He thought that seeing the design in an isometric or perspective might help matters and help clarify the design in regards to bulk and mass. He also felt that this proposed design will be noticeable and different from the other residences in the neighborhood and some work needs to be done on the compatibility, Commissioner Emenhiser stated that in reviewing this project he did not find that there is a significant view impact to the neighboring property. He also noted that there are four other homes in the neighborhood that are close to the same size as the proposed residence in terms of square footage and four other homes with three car garages. He did feel, however, that the bulk and mass is, rather striking and he would not be able to make the neighborhood compatibility finding at this time. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that in the photographs staff showed from the neighboring properties in regards to view impairment that there is substantial foliage on neighboring properties which creates a much greater view impairment than the potential for this project. He asked if any of this foliage is over 16 feet in height or in any way could be challenged. Associate Planner Fox answered that, as noted in the staff report, the Height Variation Guidelines do talk about and require staff to attempt to analyze view impacts exclusive Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 6 of foliage. He did not know the height of the foliage, but estimated that the tree in the photograph of the view from 30402 Calle de Suenos could be over 16 feet in height. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that, as to the issue of view impairment at 30402 Calle de Suenos, it was rather a small amount of view that would be impaired in terms of the entire view. However, the only protected view would be of the ocean which is in the middle of the view frame, and there would be a substantial reduction of the ocean view as compared to what they currently have. He was also concerned with the bulk and mass issues of the proposed addition. He noted that it was not the size itself that was troubling, but rather the appearance of bulk and mass. This is accentuated somewhat by the fact that the structure will be closer to the street and within the 20 foot setback, Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant the opportunity to address staff's and the Commission's concerns with the proposed project, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Chairman Tomblin re-opened the public hearing to ask the applicant if he would be willing to grant a one-time extension in order to continue the public hearing. Dr. Khaja granted the one-time 90 day extension. He again noted, however, that the issue of view impairment is very subjective and he did not think a significant view would be blocked from his neighbor's home. In looking at the calendar and discussing the available dates with the applicant, it was determined that this item would be continued to the August 23rd meeting. Commissioner Gerstner revised his motion to continue the public hearing to the August 23rd meeting, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (4-0). 4. General Plan Update — Review proposed changes to the,existing Land Use Map Director Rojas noted that this item includes Subregions 3 and 4 and that Commissioner Emenhiser lives in the Subregion 3 area and will have to recuse himself from the discussion for that area. With that, there will not be a quorum for the discussion on Subregion 3. However, there will be a quorum for a discussion on the Subregion 4 section of the item, Therefore, Subregion 3 cannot be discussed during the hearing for this item and only Subregion 4 will be discussed. Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, briefly explaining the General Plan Land Use Map and the Coastal Specific Land Use Map. He pointed out the differences in the two maps, and explained that staff was revising the General Plan Land Use Map so that it is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan, In doing this there will be no significant change to existing land uses, as staff currently evaluates projects according to the Coastal Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 7 Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there are any properties in the designation R 1-2 that currently are existing non-conforming properties relative to that zoning density. Deputy Director Pfost did not believe there are any existing non-conforming properties. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Brian Conroy (24 Seacove Drive) was very much in favor of this change and felt it should have been done years ago. He pointed out the coastal setback line on the map and noted this map is now being used rather than the old ESA maps, He felt it was a very wise decision to make the plan coherent with the General Plan. Pat Clark (30 Seacove Drive) stated that if the correct coastal setback line had been in place when she remodeled she could have had much more of the house that she wanted. She was pleased that staff was no longer using the ESA maps. Shannon Hartman (28 Seacove Drive) agreed with both of the speakers and thanked staff and the Commission for making this change. Director Rojas clarified that the new maps are not attempting to remap the ESA line or the Coastal Setback Line, but rather are correcting the boundary between the land use zones. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked that when the Commission discusses Subregion 3, he would like to know if there are any existing non-conforming lots in the region. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested that, because there are always public speakers on this item, that at future meetings the proposed changes to the land use map be put earlier on the agenda so that the speakers don't have to wait until the end of the meeting to speak. Director Rojas stated that the item could be placed under continued business, and the Commission agreed. The Commission agreed to approve the proposed changes to Subregion 4 of the Coastal Specific Plan and continued the discussion of the proposed changes to Subregion 3 to the July 12th meeting. NEW BUSINESS 5. Proposed clean up amendments to the Planning Commission's rules and procedures Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 8 Because only four Commissioners were present, this item was continued to the June 28, 2011 meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-a-genda for the meeting on June 28, 2011 The Commission reviewed and unanimously approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 9