Loading...
PC MINS 20121127 Approved December 11, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:08 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 Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Kim, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their November 201" meeting, the City Council adopted the Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission establishing a permit process for allowing hedges over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback. He also reported that the City Council initiated a code amendment to amend the existing Fence, Wall and Hedge Ordinance to provide additional view protection to certain adjoining homeowners. Director Rojas distributed eight items of correspondence related to agenda item No. 1. He also noted that a FTP site has been set up to allow Commissioners to download future Planning Commission staff reports in lieu of receiving them on a CD. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-a -gends items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS As Commissioner Gerstner was the applicant for this application, he was recused from the item and was seated in the audience. 1. Grading Permit / Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00349): 5317 Rolling Ridge Road Before hearing the staff report, Chairman Tetreault explained that, while the applicant for this project is a Planning Commissioner, it is the duty of the Planning Commission to review all such applications, The Planning Commissioners must review the application without bias, and rule upon it. If a Commissioner feels he cannot review the application without bias, he must recuse himself from the item. He stated that he felt he was duty- bound and it would be unfair for him to be otherwise, to review this case as he would any other case presented before the Planning Commission. He asked the Commissioners if anyone felt they should recuse because of their association with Commissioner Gerstner, All Commissioners felt they could fairly review this application, Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that given the topography of the sloping lot, the applicant is proposing a net total grading of 1,100 cubic yards to accommodate three separate detached structures consisting of a second unit at the rear of the lot, a cabana, and a detached five-car garage at the front of the property. She discussed the proposed garage and the grading needed to construct the garage. She also showed several photos of the silhouette for the garage from several locations. She also showed photos of the silhouettes for the proposed cabana and the proposed second unit. She explained that staff feels the proposed grading for the project does not exceed what is necessary for the use and was able to make all of the grading criteria to recommend approval. Additionally, given the unique character of this neighborhood where there is not a predominant architectural style, staff feels the proposed project does not appear bulk or massive from the street, noting the cabana and the second unit cannot be seen from any properties or from private or public streets. With that, staff is recommending approval of the project, as conditioned in the staff report. She noted that there were some minor changes to the Resolution and these changes are specified in an email communication between the applicant and staff. She briefly discussed these changes. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Bill Gerstner (applicant) discussed the five primary design considerations for the project, which were to maintain the structures within the allowable height limits, minimize the neighborhood impacts, design with a compatible appearance, incorporate historical design elements from the peninsula, and create outdoor spaces between the structures. He felt he was able to solve these design considerations, and briefly discussed how this was done. He noted that rather than designing one large structure, he has designed multiple small structures, each of which can be easily screened from the neighboring properties, With regards to re-grading the easement, he explained this will allow the Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 Page 2 garage to be at a lower level and less visible. It will also allow the upper driveway to match the easement. He felt the proposed grading will be minimal and will not restrict the road in any way in terms of loss of width or use. He hoped to get the permission of all easement holders to do the grading, however if he doesn't get their permission he has an alternative plan. Commissioner Lewis asked who will pay for the grading of the easement. Mr. Gerstner answered that he will pay for the work in the easement, Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Gerstner what will happen if he cannot get all of the easement holder's permission to reconstruct the road. Mr. Gerstner explained that the project will not change, the only difference being the upper driveway will be a parking spot rather than a driveway, as the driveway would be steeper than what is allowed by the City. Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Gerstner how he will be using the second unit proposed on the property, Mr. Gerstner anticipated his mother living in the second unit on a part-time basis some time in the future. He also explained he has three children and he would like his home to be a place where, when his children get older, they can spend time with their friends under a reasonable level of supervision, Chairman Tetreault asked what assurances are in place that this unit would not be used as a rental unit if Mr. Gerstner were to sell his home. Mr. Gerstner referred to condition of approval No. 23 which restricts the use of the second unit as a rental, Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Gerstner if he was now in agreement with the conditions of approval, as re-written. Mr. Gerstner answered that he has not actually seen the conditions as re-written, but if they have been changed as indicated in an earlier email, he was in agreement with the conditions of approval. Pritam Matharu stated his property on Bayridge Road is adjacent to the subject property. He stated he has no objection to the proposed project or to the grading of the property or easement. He stated he was in support of the proposed project. Ronald Florance (5251 Rollingridge Road) stated that Mr. Gerstner is proposing to install a 1,964 square foot, five-car garage at the front of his property. He stated this proposed garage is fifty five feet wide, thirty seven feet deep, and sixteen feet in height. He discussed the amount of glass that will be on the two sets of garage doors. He Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2012 Page 3 stated that six of the seven easement holders on Rollingridge Road are against the proposed lowering of the easement and are against the project as well. He felt Mr. Gerstner may be attempting to turn the proposed garage into a residence, Ralph Allman (5335 Rollingridge Road) stated his main concern was that as a property owner, he just spent $6,000 resurfacing the road and therefore would not like to see Mr. Gerstner inconvenience the other residents for his own convenience. He noted he has a very steep driveway down to his property and it has not been an issue. He also did not feel the proposed modern design of the home was compatible with the other homes on Rollingridge Road. He questioned why the five-car garage couldn't be moved farther north on the property so it is not visible from the road. He questioned why Mr. Gerstner has not asked for the complete plan for the entire property in this application and why the Planning Commission is being asked to approve this project in pieces. He stated he has asked Mr. Gerstner for a rendering of what the project will look like, however Mr. Gerstner has responded that he doesn't want to spend that kind of money to do so. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Allman if the residents on Rollingridge Road have any type of HOA or architectural committee to look at proposed architectural renderings and styles. Mr. Allman answered the neighborhood does not have any type of HOA or architectural committee. He noted that the homes built in the neighborhood are California ranch style and there are no modern structures in the area, Dick Johnson (5383 Rollingridge Road) explained that one of the things he enjoys about his neighborhood is driving up Rollingridge Road and seeing it as a lovely country road, and even though Mr. Allman has built a huge new home, it cannot be seen from the road. He stated that he can understand the desire and need to have a large garage, but felt the structure is too close to the road. He didn't understand why the garage couldn't be located farther north and not visible from the road. He also objected to the re- grading of the road, as he goes up and down it many times a day and it would be a severe inconvenience. Bill Gerstner (in rebuttal) understood the neighbors' concerns about the size of the garage, however noted that Mr. Florance has a 1,300 square foot garage and Mr. Allman has a five-car garage. He also noted his garage will be set back thirty feet from the road, while Mr. Allman's entire house is twenty feet away from the road. He stated his house will be one of only two on the street that will actually have a pad level below the elevation of the road. He also explained that only the most recent homes built on the street are Mediterranean in style. He understood that the neighbors may not like the design of the house, but he does not like the Tuscan revival type style. He noted that he did not object to the style of Mr. Allman's house when it was being designed because it is his house and his property and it is his right to build this style in this eclectic community. He felt he has the same right. He stated he is satisfied with the conditions of approval, and asked the Commission to approve staff's recommendations. He asked the Commission to consider adjusting the condition, on page 19, item 14 A(v) in regards Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2012 Page 4 to the proposed retaining wall. He explained that if he is not allowed to regrade the road the retaining wall at the garage must get taller, and he wanted to ensure that any adjustments that will have to happen are things that staff can approve. He noted the code allows for five feet prescriptively, and he was asking the Commission to allow the adjustment, if necessary, for up to 6 1/2 feet. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Gerstner if he would be opposed to a condition preventing him from renting out areas of his five-car garage. Mr. Gerstner had no problem with such a condition. Commissioner Lewis noted a hedge is proposed to be planted between the road and the garage, and asked Mr. Gerstner how long he felt it would take for the hedge to grow sufficiently to mask the garage. Mr. Gerstner estimated it may take a year for the hedge fill in to mask the garage. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. Gerstner if the garage could be located elsewhere on the property, as suggested by the neighbors. Mr. Gerstner answered that physically the garage can be located elsewhere, however he explained that his property is twice the size of Mr. Allman's property, and didn't think that just because his property is large he should have to drag everything on the property away from the road. He also did not think that would be consistent with what is done in the community, as most of the properties in the community have the garage at the road and most of the codes talk about having a twenty foot setback which will allow a car to be parked outside of the garage. Vice Chairman Emenhiser also noted that Mr. Florance had mentioned that six of the seven neighbors are not in favor of the project, and asked Mr. Gerstner to comment. Mr. Gerstner stated the Commissioners have letters in their packets that would dispute that statement, Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Gerstner if he had any plans to remodel the main house in the future. Mr. Gerstner did not see plans to redo the main house in the near future. He acknowledged the house is old and someday he would like to do something, but he did not see how that could happen in the near future. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if the Commission had the discretion to dictate a particular design for the house in terms of neighborhood compatibility, Planning Gornmisslor Minutes November 27,2012 Page 5 Associate Planner Kim explained that neighborhood compatibility can include architectural style, materials, and color. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if there are any regulations in regards to applicants who may propose the addition of certain ancillary structures and then after a certain amount of time that applicant then submits additional plans for another project on the property. He asked how the Commission would review that in a series rather than as a singly submitted project. Associate Planner Kim explained that the Code has no restrictions on homeowners in terms of doing a project as one rather than in separate phases. In addition, depending on what is proposed, each separate project may have to go through its own neighborhood compatibility assessment. Commissioner Lewis asked if there is a condition of approval requiring landscaping to screen the garage from the road. Associate Planner Kim stated that there is not such a condition of approval at this time because the landscaping is shown on the plans. She noted a condition in the Resolution that the project has to conform with the approved plans, but that a condition of approval can be added if the Commission wished to do so. Chairman Tetreault referred to Mr. Gerstner's request that the retaining wall next to the garage be allowed to a maximum height of 6 1/2 feet in the event he could not get permission from the residents to lower the height of the road easement. Associate Planner Kim explained that generally that would not be allowed, explaining that if Mr. Gerstner wants to modify the approved plans typically a modified plan would be submitted to the City for review and approval. She stated that staff does not, as a matter of general practice, put something in the conditions of approval that is not part of the approved plan. Director Rojas added that there are conditions to allow minor modifications to the plans in the future, however he understood the applicant's concern about what would be considered a minor modification for this project. He explained that to allow a wall over five feet in height special findings must be made by the Planning Commission to allow the possibility of a wall up to 6 1/2 feet in height in the future. He referred the Commission to the discussion in the staff report, noting the Commission can decide at this meeting that a future revision to the retaining wall can be reviewed by the Director or should be brought back to the Commission for review. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as presented by staff, with the following modifications: 1) the changes set forth in staff's email of November 26, 2012 be incorporated into the conditions of approval; 2) condition Nos. 22 and 23 be modified to reflect the garage structure cannot be rented out; 3) require a hedge be planted to minimize the visibility of the garage from the road; and 4) Planning commission Minutes November 27,2012 Page 6 I condition No. 14 (A)(v) be modified to authorize the Director to make adjustments to the retaining wall up to 6 1/2 feet in height supported by the necessary findings in the Resolution, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Lewis commented that if he were designing the house he would push the garage back from the street and not have a pool that is not visible from the house. However, it is not the Commission's job to design a house-, rather it is the Commission's job to try to make the necessary findings to approve the project. He stated he was able to make all of the necessary findings, and therefore supported the project. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Lewis, adding that the Commission has not taken the role of trying to redesign a house to make it more compatible with the neighborhood, but rather look more closely at the issues of bulk and mass rather than design. He too was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Nelson was pleased that the project has been nested into the vegetation and is well screened from the road and neighboring properties. He also very much supported the idea of re-grading the road. He stated that he is in support of the motion. The motion to approve PC Resolution 2012-19 was approved as modified, (6-0) with Commissioner Gerstner recused. Commissioner Tetreault felt that, since this is a significant project and the applicant is a Planning Commissioner, that the appeal fee to appeal this project should be waived. He understood that it is ultimately the decision of the City Council as to whether or not appeal fees should be waived, 2. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2012-00305): 29000 Western Ave Commissioner Gerstner returned to the dais. Vice Chairman Emenhiser recused himself from hearing this application as well as item No. 3, and left the dais, Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. She stated that staff was able to make all of the required findings and was recommending approval of the project, as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Tomblin noted that most of the antenna replacements have been hidden behind a screen or enclosure and asked why this antenna was not conditioned to be placed behind the screen. Director Rojas explained that staff had initially indicated to the applicant the preference the antennas be placed behind the screen, however the applicant challenged staff to Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2012 Page 7 make the findings to support this requirement because this is a revision to an application previously approved by the Planning Commission with finding that the antennas on the outside of the screen would have no impact. Therefore, the decision to require the applicant to now place antennas inside the structure would be considered arbitrary and not supported by findings. Commissioner Tomblin asked if it was in the purview of the Commission to require the antenna be screened. Director Rojas explained the Commission would have to make the finding that there is an aesthetic impact, noting a finding was previously made with the original application that there is not an aesthetic impact, and something would have to be different to warrant a change in the finding. However, the Commission does have the discretion to make such a finding and the applicant can appeal that decision to the City Council, Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Yumi Kim (representing Sprint PCS) stated Sprint is requesting the approval of the revision of the Conditional Use Permit to replace two existing panel antennas as well as the equipment associated with these antennas. She stated she was available for any questions, Commissioner Tomblin asked Ms. Kim why that antenna was not being moved inside the screen, Ms. Kim answered the material the antenna is mounted behind is actually a metal screen and to locate behind that material would cause interference and prevent rf signals from propagating properly. Therefore, Sprint would like to maintain the existing location, Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Tomblin proposed an amendment to the motion to require the antenna be moved behind the screen or be screened in some fashion. Commissioner Nelson did not accept the proposed amendment. He stated that if that is a metal screen, and the antenna is going to be functional, then the antenna must be placed on the outside of the screen, The motion to approve PC Resolution 2012-20 was approved as recommended by staff, (5-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting and Vice Chairman Emenhiser recused. Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2012 Page 8 3. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2011-00106): 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the request was to remove six existing antennas and replace with twelve new antennas in the same general location. She explained the scope of the project and stated staff was able to make all of the required findings. She noted that several years ago when the existing concrete structure was approved staff had done a view analysis from one specific property on Villa Rosa. She explained that staff made a determination that the overall height and size of the new structure would not cause a significant view impairment from that property. Chairman Tetreault asked staff what discretion the Commission has with respect to approving or denying an application such as this with respect to views, Associate Planner Kim noted a finding in the Conditional Use Permit that discusses significant adverse affects to adjacent properties. She stated that staff has always incorporated view impacts as part of adverse affects, and if this finding could not be made staff would recommend denial. The applicant would then have to modify or relocate the enclosure to an area where staff could then make the findings. Director Rojas added that the Federal law states that a decision to deny an antenna request shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, if the Planning Commission has evidence of significant view impairment and it is supported, the denial of the application is consistent with Federal law. Commissioner Leon asked if the homeowner at 6332 Villa Rosa notified of this project, Associate Planner Kim answered that the owner was notified, and staff submitted a written request to the homeowner to perform a site visit. However, the owner did not feel a site visit was necessary and that the upgraded structure is an improvement, the impacts are negligible, and he did not oppose the project. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Scott Longhurst (representing AT&T) stated the reason for the request to upgrade the facility was to allow for installation of new 4-G technology, which will provide enhanced wireless services to the community. He discussed condition of approval No. 15 which requires AT&T to submit periodic updates on the status of the technology of the facility. He explained AT&T was concerned about having to do this with every one of its sites, as there are approximately eight facilities in this City. However, after speaking to Ms. Kim he has a better understanding of the condition of approval, Chairman Tetreault explained that the City's concern is that outdated equipment does not remain in place at the various sites throughout the City. Planning Commission Minutes November 27,2012 Page 8 Mr. Longhurst understood, adding that is one of the conditions in the lease that AT&T signed. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the item as recommended by staff, thereby approving PC Resolution 2012-00021, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0) with Vice Chairman Emenhiser recused. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Vice Chairman Emenhiser returned to the dais. 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on December 11, 2012 The pre-agenda was approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Planning commission Minutes November 27,2012 Page 10