Loading...
PC MINS 20110823 Approved September 27, 2011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioner Lewis and Vice Chairman Tetreault were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Fox and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council continued, at the request of the appellant, the hearing on the appeal of the Commission's denial of a second story addition on LaGarita Drive. Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and a letter submitted to the Planning Commission on a non-agenda item related to a view restoration matter along with staff's written response. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00016): 30439 Calle de Suenos Associate Planner Fox began the staff report by giving a brief background of the project and explaining the major changes that have been made to the proposed project, as detailed in the staff report. She showed plans of the original proposed floor plans and elevation as opposed to the current revised proposed floor plans and elevations. He also displayed isometric views of the revised project. He discussed the view impairment issues with the original proposed project and compared those views with photographs taken with the revised silhouette in place. He noted that staff feels the view findings can now be made. He also noted that staff felt the previous concerns with bulk and mass have been addressed. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution included in the staff report which would conditionally approve the project. Commissioner Knight asked staff how a view is assessed when there is foliage in the view. Associate Planner Fox explained that the Code requires the view impacts be assessed exclusive of foliage. Commissioner Knight asked staff about the ceiling heights, specifically if there are any ceilings in the new additions that have a 10 foot ceiling on the first floor and a 9 foot ceiling on the second floor. Associate Planner Fox answered that it appears the master bathroom has a 10 foot plate height. Commissioner Knight asked if the master bathroom was one of the areas that creates a possible significant view impact. Associate Planner Fox answered it is one of the areas staff believes the view impairment from 30402 Calle de Suenos is less than significant. Before hearing the public speakers, Director Rojas noted that Commissioners Leon and Knight were absent from the previous meeting and asked if they had reviewed the minutes and/or the tape of the previous meeting where this item was discussed, and could therefore participate in the discussion at this meeting. Both Commissioners stated they had reviewed the minutes from the previous hearing and felt they could participate in this discussion. Marcoz Anaya (architect) explained that the house is at varying levels and the plate heights are existing. He has not gone beyond what is existing in regards to plate heights, but has lowered the roof pitch to address view concerns. He explained in detail the portions of the residence and plate heights that are existing and what will be added. Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Leon stated that when he visited the site he was surprised to see that portions of the silhouette are taller than the existing house, and noted that the overall house is taller than the existing house. Mr. Anaya did not think that was true. He explained that a hipped gable was added on top of the existing sloped roof and therefore the flags would be higher at that point than the existing sloped roof but are not higher than the existing ridge. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the silhouette had been certified. Associate Planner Fox answered that the silhouette had been certified that it accurately reflects what is shown on the plans. Chairman Tomblin referred to the residence where this proposed project impacts the view and the roof of the proposed project, and asked if there is a differential between the certification of the flags and height of the roof, which appears higher, versus what the plans state as a lower roof. He questioned if the area being discussed would have any impact on the views from neighboring properties. Associate Planner Fox pointed out the area of the roof in question is near the front of the house, whereas the area of the proposed residence that would cause a view impact to the house across the street is towards the rear of the house. He noted, however, that if the flagging does not accurately reflect what is being proposed it could alter the perception of whether or not there is significant view impairment. Commissioner Leon pointed out the areas he felt there was a discrepancy between the flagging and what is shown on the plans, pointing out the area where he felt the flags look higher than the current roof. He felt that if that portion of the house were added at the same level as the existing house, it would be lower than the appearance of the flags. Mr. Anaya stated the actual ridge height of the proposed addition will be lower than the existing roof line and that because of the location at the front of the house, the flags may appear higher. Nazir Khaia (applicant) felt his architect has addressed the Commission's issues from the last meeting and will continue to cooperate with the City. He thanked the Commission for their time. James Pachares (30402 Calle de Suenos) stated he was very pleased when, in recognition of finding that the proposed project would significantly impair his protected view, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request. While the applicant has modified the project to address the view concern, he did not feel the modified silhouette significantly lessens the degree of his view impairment. While staff has found the initial proposal would have blocked 10 to 15 percent of his ocean view, they now find the Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2011 Page 3 impairment would be in the range of 5 to 10 percent. He took issue with those percentages and did not agree with them. He felt that, even with the modifications, the proposed project will still obliterate approximately 75 percent of his ocean view. He therefore felt the application should be denied, as it would still result in a significant impairment of a protected view. He invited the Commissioners to come to his home to see the view. He also noted that the tree that was blocking a portion of the view was recently trimmed and the view should be reassessed. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Pachares if, now that the tree has been trimmed, he can see the ocean view above the neighbor's house. Mr. Pachares answered that the tree was cut from the bottom up as well as vertically. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Pachares if the new flags seem to be higher or further into his view than the current roof structure. Mr. Pachares was not sure. Nazir Khaia (in rebuttal) strongly endorsed Mr. Pachares' request that the Commissioners visit his site and look at the view from the inside of the residence. He noted that he was not convinced that there is any significant view impairment caused by his proposed addition. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Director Rojas noted that the Permit Streamling Act deadline for a decision on this application is September 26th, meaning there is only one more meeting where the Commission can act on this, which is the September 13th meeting. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to the September 13th meeting to provide the Commissioners the opportunity to assess the view from the inside of Mr. Pachares's residence, seconded by Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Leon asked staff how they arrived at a view impairment of 10 to 15 percent. Associate Planner Fox stated that it is an estimate, and explained that staff is .considering the entirety of the view which would includes views that are currently obscured by foliage. Commissioner Emenhiser understood the resident's desire to have the Commissioners look at the view from his kitchen, however he felt he had enough information at this time to make a decision. In looking at the revised elevations, Commissioner Knight stated that if it was possible he would like to see some type of recess above the garage and a possible lowering of Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2011 Page 4 the plate height. He felt that both of these actions would help with the bulk and mass of the house from the front. The motion to continue the public hearing to September 13, 2011 was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit Revision "A" (Case No. ZON2002-00216): 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, noting that staff's recommendation is to continue the public hearing to September 13th due to the fact that there were two public notices sent out. She explained that the second notice was sent out due to an incorrect statement in the original notice as well as the addition of the sign program revision that was requested by the applicant. She noted the comment period for the second notice expires two days from this evening. Chairman Tomblin stated that this project is in his neighborhood, however his home is outside of the 500 foot radius from the subject property, however it is in his neighborhood. He also asked staff with the proposed change from a real estate office to a bank, if a new traffic study would be required. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff approached a senior engineer in the Public Works Department regarding the trip rates that are associated with an administrative building versus a financial institution and noted that an additional traffic analysis would not likely be needed, but that the City's senior engineer will confirm the need for an analysis. Commissioner Knight moved to approve staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to the meeting on September 13, 2011, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Unanimously approved. 3. Miscellaneous code amendment (Case No. ZON2011-00023) Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that this was a code amendment initiation request that was brought forward by the Director to the City Council and the City Council did initiate this request. She explained the purpose of this code amendment is to fix or clarify ambiguous language, remove language discrepancies, simplify or modify certain requirements, and codify existing policies and procedures within the current Development Code. She noted that these changes are discussed and listed throughout the staff report. She stated staff is looking for Planning Commission feedback on these proposed changes and on September 27t a formal recommendation of adoption for approval that will be presented for approval. This will then be forwarded to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2011 Page 5 Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify the definition of a home occupation employee, which staff clarified. With respect to the required parking for the home occupation employee, Commissioner Leon asked staff if there have been a lot of problems or complaints regarding this issue. He questioned if this was trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist and if the City is trying to make a change to the code to make it more restrictive when it has not proven to be a problem in the past. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that when applying for a home occupation permit, the code currently requires that if there is an employee that a parking space be provided for one home occupation employee on site. The intent was that the employee not park on the street. Commissioner Gerstner suggested the language should simply say the employee shall not park on the street. Chairman Tomblin discussed the language regarding chimneys, and asked staff for clarification. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the language is clarifying that chimneys are limited in height to the minimum height required by the Building Code, and that as long as the height is the minimum height required by the Building Code, no view analysis is necessary. Commissioner Knight asked if the width of chimneys is regulated. Director Rojas answered that this code does not address the width of chimneys. Commissioner Gerstner noted with this proposed language that chimneys attached to accessory structures are no longer discussed. Director Rojas agreed and stated chimneys attached to accessory structures should be addressed. He added that he would have to discuss the issue with the building official, noting that accessory structures are limited to a height of twelve feet and therefore the chimney may be quite a bit higher than the structure. Commissioner Leon asked if the City is having a problem with uncertified acupuncture offices, and felt that it was odd this was being added to what is currently relatively general language. He was surprised there was a need to add an acupuncture use as a subject to be regulated and questioned whether the City is knowledgeable enough to assess their educational certificates and background investigation. Director Rojas explained this came from a list of amendments the City has been keeping. At one time someone came in with a proposal for an acupuncture use and Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2011 Page 6 since the code did not address it, staff had to make some interpretations as to whether the use is allowed. Adding it to the list of uses would remove the doubt. Commissioner Gerstner felt that if this happened once several years ago and it hadn't happened since, that there is not really a need. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Gerstner questioned why staff is suggesting a geology investigation be required as part of the planning process for new single family residences instead of part of the building and safety process, as it currently is. Director Rojas explained that there were situations in the past whereby the Planning Commission approved a new house and when the plans were submitted to Building and Safety the geology report required that some part of the house be modified or moved. This required the whole project to be brought back before the Planning Commission for review at an expense to the applicant. He explained that to avoid this, when he became Director he instituted a policy that required applicants for new single family residences to submit geology reports as part of the planning process. He noted that the proposal is that applicants submit a preliminary report, with an in-concept approval from the City Geologist. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to explain their reason for inclusion of the hillside setback recommendation. Director Rojas explained that the language is from the Building Code, and again, staff felt that it would be beneficial for applicants to know this information during the Planning process rather than waiting until they submit plans to Building and Safety. He added that staffs proposal is to allow exceptions to the hillside setbacks through a Minor Exception Permit, provided that it can be shown the building can be structurally designed for the situation. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify the language in the staff report regarding breezeways. Director Rojas explained that staff has encountered situations where an existing pitched roof extends across two separate buildings and felt that in such situations the structures should not be considered as two separate buildings. Commissioner Knight suggested clarifying language that says extension of the roof structure of a main building that does not connect to another roof structure. Commissioner Gerstner asked why it is important that certain structures be considered as one building. Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2011 Page 7 Director Rojas answered that if considered as separate buildings, they would be subject to two different height standards, as there is a twelve foot height limit for accessory structures. There was some discussion on accessory structures and the need for this type of language, and Director Rojas felt that further clarification from the City Attorney may be needed on this subject. Commissioner Leon felt that spending a lot of time on how to define a story was, in his opinion, spending time on the wrong thing, noting there are a lot of creative ways people can play with the way in which they identify stories. He felt that the City should regulate the overall structure envelope so the overall structure fits into the neighborhood and there shouldn't be a limitation on stories. The Commission asked staff to incorporate the feedback given by the Commission and the item was continued to September 27, 2011. 4. FAR Code amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00332) Director Rojas stated that staff was recommending this item be continued to the September 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff more time to assemble the information for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to September 27, 2011, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Continued without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 13, 2011 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2011 Page 8