Loading...
PC MINS 20130924 Approved 10/22/2013 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES y PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Nelson, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Leon, and Chairman Emenhiser Absent: Commissioners Lewis and Tomblin were excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council agreed with the Commission's recommended code amendments to expand the noticing for City Tree Review permits. In addition, the Council reviewed the Commission's recommended draft Housing Element, raised some questions, and continued the item to their October 1 st meeting. Director Rojas distributed late correspondence consisting of one letter for agenda item NO. 1, one letter for agenda item No. 3, and one letter for agenda item No. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE re ardin non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2013-00226): 27108 Diamondhead Lane Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She explained that as a result of the public notice, staff was contacted by two residents across the street from the subject property with concerns regarding their view. Staff visited both properties and determined no view impairment resulting from the proposed addition to the residence at 27105 Diamondhead Lane. However, staff felt that the property at 27111 Diamondhead Lane would have view impairment. As a result, the applicant revised the proposal. She displayed pictures taken from 27111 Diamondhead Lane showing the current proposal and the impact to the view, noting staff found no significant view impairment caused by the currently proposed project. She stated that based on the findings as described in the staff report, staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Travis Yee (applicant) stated he was available for any questions from the Commission. Vice Chairman Leon asked Mr. Yee if the revised proposal will be sufficient and if he will be happy with this addition to his residence. Mr. Yee explained the original design was for a nice big family room for the kids to congregate. The revised plan is smaller, but it does add a large bedroom which is much needed. Commissioner Nelson referred to the palm tree on the property, and asked Mr. Yee how long he felt it would be before that tree was over sixteen feet in height. Mr. Yee answered that he will removing the lower fronds of the tree to open up the view for his neighbors across the street. He noted that is included in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Nelson asked if the neighbors who initially objected to the plan are now satisfied with the redesign. Mr. Yee answered that he has not asked the neighbors if they are in agreement with the new plan. He noted that these neighbors have been notified by the City of the new plan and this meeting. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Leon moved to approve the plan as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. PC Resolution 2013-20 was approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 2 2. Site Plan Review Grading, Variance Minor Exception Permit Case No. ZON2013-003281: 2902 Vista del Mar Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the prior approvals granted by the Planning Commission for a new house on this property. She compared the project that was previously approved to the project now before the Commission, pointing out the differences in the two. Most notably, the new project now has a 3,200 square foot basement that had previously been eliminated because of neighborhood compatibility concerns and the increased grading in the rear yard. She explained that staff felt that requesting a structure size larger than the one previously approved as well as the increased grading quantity is excessive and would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Additionally, given the topography of this property is similar to properties on the same side of the slope, staff felt that requesting two and a half times the amount of grading quantities is excessive and unreasonable and beyond the economic development of the lot. Based on the analysis and discussion in the staff report, staff is recommending denial of the project as currently presented. Commission Nelson noted that when visiting the property he did not feel the current project as silhouetted appears to be any larger than the home above it or most of the houses in the neighborhood. In addition, he did not feel the grading quantity was excessive for the property and disagreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the previously approved project which constituted 28% lot coverage, while the current proposal is at 28.5% lot coverage. He noted that in looking at the two projects it appears the current project is much larger and has more than .5% lot coverage increase from the original project. Associate Planner Kim stated staff had the same concern, and asked the architect to verify the numbers. The architect assured staff that the lot coverage is correct at 28.5 percent. Commissioner Tetreault did not think there was any way the new project was only .5% larger in lot coverage than the original project, asked if that number has in any way been verified by staff. Associate Planner Kim explained that staff did not have the driveway or hardscape square footage for the previously approved project so staff was not able to independently verify the accuracy of the previously approved project's lot coverage.. Vice Chairman Leon asked staff if they have verified the math of the current proposal in terms of lot coverage. Associate Planner Kim noted the breakdown of measurements on the cover page of the plans, but stated she had not scaled the plans. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 3 Vice Chairman Leon agreed that 5,300 cubic yards is a high amount of grading in comparison to the adjacent properties, but asked staff how that compares to other hillside properties in the City. Associate Planner Kim agreed there have been some properties in other parts of the City where the grading quantity has been similar, however the existing homes in this neighborhood have similar sloping conditions, and staff felt that 5,300 cubic yards is excessive for the conditions of the lot. Vice Chairman Leon noted that the difference is the property owners are basically digging a large hole and putting the house in the hole, and when it is finished it won't appear much different than the other house in the neighborhood. He also asked, given the very large size of this home, if the code requires more than three parking spaces. Associate Planner Kim answered that the code requires a three-car garage, but no more. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there were any pictures of neighboring homes to compare this proposal with, in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Associate Planner Kim explained that one cannot see the neighboring homes from the public right-of-way. She displayed a photo taken from Palos Verdes Drive East showing the silhouette and one home directly to next to the subject property. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing.. Goitom Tekletsion (architect) explained that in terms of lot coverage, he very carefully broke each section of the plan down and was very confident that the lot coverage calculation is correct. He also noted that the actual proposed building is the same size as the previously approved residence; the change comes from the proposed basement. He also pointed out that this is a very large lot, at 1.6 acres. Commissioner Gerstner addressed the grading and the need for what he felt would be a significant retaining wall, and noted that the wall does not show on the plans. He asked Mr. Tekletsion how he was going to deal with the differences in elevation at the side of the lot. Mr. Tekletsion explained that this is a conceptual plan and that there will be a retaining wall built at this location that has been designed by a civil engineer. Commissioner Gerstner understood, however he noted that the height and location of a retaining wall is something that the Planning Commission should review as part of this process. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 4 Eric Lin (representing land owner) stated his clients bought this property for the large lot size and outstanding views. He explained the original design of the approved house does not allow for enough storage and display area for the new owners, which is why they have requested the large basement. He acknowledged this home will be larger than the others in the neighborhood, but pointed out this lot is larger than the others in the neighborhood. In regards to the grading, he stated that the large quantity of grading is to accommodate the proposed basement and the swimming pool, and noted that 5,300 cubic yards is a rough estimate and the owners feel that once they meet with an engineer they can bring that number down significantly. Commissioner Nelson asked if the basement will be used largely for storage and not as livable space. Mr. Lin answered that the plan for the basement is that it be used for storage and displays. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there had been any correspondence from the neighbors. Associate Planner Kim answered that staff had not received any correspondence from the neighbors. Chairman Emenhiser closed he public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he generally does not have issues with a larger home if it is designed in such a way that it is not seen from the street or neighboring properties. However, he felt there are some things in this design that are mitigating, in particular the grading. He did not feel the proposed grading was possible without significant retaining walls, and the changes necessary to the house to accommodate the grading would be significant enough that the Commission would want to see them. He stated that while he is generally in support of a larger subterranean solution, he felt there are other factors that play into it that could be a negative. In terms of lot coverage, he felt that possibly the pervious surfaces on either side of the pool and either side of the house may not have been calculated into the lot coverage. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff on what basis they made the determination that the house was not compatible with the neighborhood. Associate Planner Kim explained that grading was the primary basis for the determination, as well as the structure size. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if it was their opinion that the visible portion of the home, its apparent bulk and mass, is not compatible with the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 5 Associate Planner Kim answered that the determination was made solely on the structure size, and staff did not find the apparent bulk and mass to be incompatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault did not believe the actual square footage of a project has been used in the past when determining neighborhood compatibility, but rather the determination had more to do with the structure's apparent bulk and mass. He acknowledged that the proposed 11,000 plus square foot project is much larger than any other structure in the neighborhood, and asked if that was staff's main concern. Associate Planner Kim answered that staff was concerned with the size, but noted another determining factor for staff was that when the project was previously approved in 2008 the Planning Commission had concerns with the size, and to help reduce the size of the project the basement was eliminated. With the elimination of the basement the Commission was able to make the neighborhood compatibility finding. Commissioner Tetreault stated he had several concerns, the first being the point brought to light by Commissioner Gerstner in regards to the existing grades on the side elevations and how a retaining wall of some unknown height will be needed. He felt it was necessary to see the retaining walls on a plan before the Commission could make a decision. In addition, he was concerned with the lot coverage. He felt the scope of this project is so much larger and takes up so much more of the lot than the 2008 project that he could not believe this current project was only .5% more lot coverage. He felt that before he could vote on this project he needed to have that verified. He also briefly discussed the Seacliff Hills Guidelines and felt this proposal was quite intensive for a lot in this development. He felt this was a major compatibility issue and questioned if the proposed development met the Seacliff Hills Guidelines. He felt if the Commission allowed this project to be developed then the Guidelines for this area are pretty much out the window. Vice Chairman Leon did not feel the plan presented to the Commission will look the same once the grading and retaining walls are taken into consideration. He too would have a hard time supporting the proposal until he saw a plan showing the retaining wall and how it will fit into the natural topography. He was in favor of the use of the basement, as it allowed the owner more square footage without imposing upon their neighbors with a massive house. He reiterated that when there is a house of this size there should be an accommodation for a larger number of cars. Chairman Emenhiser stated he was concerned about neighborhood compatibility as well as the bulk and mass of the house. While the basement may be a way to address that issue, it significantly increases the amount of grading on the lot. He felt that the applicant may want to revise the plan and present that plan to the Commission at a later date. Director Rojas noted that if the Commission would like to continue the public hearing, and noted it could be heard as early as October 22nd. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 6 Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to October 22, 2013 to allow the applicant an opportunity to present redesigned alternatives to address the Commission's concerns, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Mr. Lin stated his clients were willing to look at other options; however he noted that with the Commission's list of concerns they might need more time. Director Rojas noted that the applicant will have to grant a one-time ninety day extension per the Permit Streamling Act in order to go beyond the October 22nd meeting. Mr. Lin agreed to the one time extension. Commissioner Gerstner added that he would also like to see addressed the issues of the very significant soil retention work to do the excavation of the basement. He would not want this body to approve the house and find out later that it was not feasible to build because of these issues. Commissioner Tetreault revised his motion to continue the public hearing to November 12, 2013, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. The motion was approved, (5-0). 3. Site Plan Review Grading, Variance Minor Exception Permit Case No. ZON2013-00328 6031 Palos Verdes Drive South Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report. She explained the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She stated staff was able to make all of the required findings for approval of the proposed project. She also noted staff felt the biggest benefit in improving this site was aesthetics. She displayed a photo of the current condition of the site, noting the high visibility and accessibility of the generator to the public. Staff fells the current proposal is more appealing and any noise from the generator will be better contained as a result of the retaining walls around the perimeter of the site. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Philip Kang (representing LA County Sanitation District) stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Nelson noted this facility has been in place for many years and questioned why the Sanitation District felt it needed to make a change. Mr. Kang answered the generator was placed at the site temporarily and blocks maintenance staff access to the main pump house behind it. He stated it is a project Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2013 Page 7 the District has wanted to do for some time and there is now money in the budget to do so, Commissioner Nelson noted a fence proposed in the front of the site, and asked if there will be a fence at the rear of the site. Mr. Kang stated that theoretically there should be one at the back as there may be a fall hazard, and there will most likely be a fence placed there similar to the one seen on the bottom. He noted that there currently is a chain link fence at the rear of the property. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing.. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Commissioner Gerstner noted the late correspondence received from Ms. Swank, and asked staff to address the issues raised in her correspondence. Associate Planner Kim addressed each of the issues in Ms. Swank's correspondence. Commissioner Gerstner felt the Commission should address the chain link fence at the rear of the property. He felt the Commission should condition the chain link fence in a way that satisfies the Commission, as he did not think it was unreasonable for the applicant to clean up the back fagade. Commissioner Tetreault noted the chain link fence is existing, and asked staff if it was in the Commission's purview to mandate the applicant move or change an existing fence that is not part of this application. Director Rojas answered that the Commission would have to determine a nexus between the proposed project and the existing chain link fence. If the Commissioners believe that in order to make the required findings, that improving the aesthetics includes removing and replacing the chain link fence, then the Commission can do so. He noted another option would be to make the finding, and if the applicant chooses to replace the fence in the future, the findings have been made. Commissioner Tetreault stated he could not make that nexus to require the applicant to change their back fence, and therefore would not change his motion. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if a fence could be placed on top of the wall in the back. Associate Planner Kim explained that to put a fence on top of the retaining wall in the rear of the property would require a Minor Exception Permit. Since there is a Minor Exception Permit application as part of this proposal, part of the approval can include adding a fence onto the existing retaining wall at the rear of the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 8 Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if that fence would serve the same purpose as the existing chain link fence. Associate Planner Kim felt that, given it was an adequate height; it would serve the same purpose. Chairman Emenhiser reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Kang if extending the wrought iron fence on top of the retaining wall in a similar way along the back, would it serve the same purpose as the existing chain link fence. Mr. Kang explained the proposed wrought iron along the side walls is intended to address the neighbors' concerns while the chain link fence separates the Sanitation District property from Mr. York's property. He clarified on an overhead photo where on the property the chain link fence is located and where the existing wall with the proposed wrought iron is located. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend the motion to add that the applicant keep the existing chain link fence, but add wrought iron to the top of the rear wall for continuity. Commissioner Tetreault accepted the amendment, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Chairman Emenhiser referred to a large tree screening the generator in the photo and asked staff if that tree will remain. Associate Planner Kim answered that tree as well as another will be removed, however the applicant has proposed planting four new trees in their place. She explained the replacement trees are proposed to be 24-inch box pepper trees. Chairman Emenhiser noted the replacement trees are much smaller than the trees being removed, and therefore the structures at the site will be much more visible. The motion, as amended, was approved, thereby approving PC Resolution 2013- 21 (5-0). 4. General Plan Land Use Map update — Green Hills Memorial Park and Gateway Park Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, noting the report has been bifurcated into two different land use changes, one regarding Green Hills Memorial Park and one Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 9 regarding Gateway Park. He suggested discussing Green Hills first and then moving on to Gateway Park. He explained the proposed land use change for Green Hills, noting there is currently a Commercial Retail land use designation in the General Plan while the zoning designation on the property is Cemetery. He stated staff is proposing to change the General Plan land use designation from Commercial Retail to Cemetery, which establishes a new General Plan land use designation. With that change in land use designation staff is proposing a few minor modifications to the text that the Commission has already approved for the land use element, as noted in the staff report. He explained the change in the land use will not have any change on the use of the property and the change will not affect the Master Plan for the cemetery. Commissioner Tetreault asked if there will be any change or difference in terms of land use to this property in this proposed change. Deputy Director Pfost explained there is a change since the property is currently zoned commercial and theoretically there could be commercial development on the property as currently zoned. Commissioner Tetreault asked if there was the ability for the cemetery to do anything different with their property with this proposed zoning change. Deputy Director Pfost answered there would be no ability to do anything other than cemetery use and the zoning would not be any more or less restrictive. Commissioner Gerstner asked if adding a cemetery designation in the zoning code would preclude any other property in the City to function as a cemetery without a zone change. Deputy Director Pfost explained that Green Hills is the only property in the City with a Commercial Retail land use designation. He added the Institutional land use designation may permit cemeteries. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing.. Lori Brown stated she lives in a condo complex that borders Green Hills. She discussed her concerns with Green Hills and the development that is taking place at the property, including the fact that there is only an 8 foot setback from condo complex to Green Hills. She requested a special hearing to discuss the condo complexes concerns with Green Hills. Nevada Prewitt stated she lives in the same condo complex next to Green Hills. She stated she does not trust anything that comes from Green Hills cemetery and asked if the proposed change will affect the rules on what Green Hills can and cannot do that affects the property owners bordering the cemetery. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 10 Chairman Emenhiser reiterated that the zoning change does not change anything other than the zoning designation. He asked staff if they have heard or addressed any of these problems in the past. Deputy Director Pfost stated that this is not the first staff has heard of concerns from the Lomita residents regarding the mausoleum that was constructed. He explained the recently constructed mausoleum was identified in the Green Hills Master Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission and it complies with the setbacks of the Master Plan. In addition, the City issued a building permit for the mausoleum and the permit has been finaled. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there is any recourse for these residents. Deputy Director explained there is not much the City can do since permits were issued and the mausoleum was built per the City approvals. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation for the proposed land use designation change to Cemetery at Green Hills Memorial Park, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Tetreault asked if this change from CR to the new Cemetery designation was going to affect the land use of this property, other than it cannot be converted to commercial. Deputy Director Pfost answered that there will be no other affects upon the land use of the property. The motion was approved, (4-1) with Chairman Emenhiser dissenting. Deputy Director Pfost continued on by discussing Gateway Park. He gave a brief background of the discussion previously before the Commission and the Commission's agreement that Gateway Park could be changed to an Active Recreational designation from its current Open Space Hazard, Residential, and Agricultural land use designation. He stated this meeting is the public hearing before the Planning Commission to formally make that change. He provided a brief background on Gateway Park as discussed in the staff report and discussed the Coast Vision Plan and the site goals and site concept plan in regards to Gateway Park. He explained that because the Coast Vision Plan indicated Gateway Park would pursue active recreational pursuits as part of its site goals, staff naturally recommended an Active Recreational designation for the site, which the Planning Commission agreed to. Since then, however, staff has reconsidered its recommendation, looking at it in a bit more detail. He noted staff received correspondence challenging that there shouldn't be anything placed on the site given its geologic instability as well as staff's closer look at the definition of Active Recreational, which implies highly structured uses and recreational building. Staff was concerned Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 11 about putting a land use designation on the site that implies there can be recreational buildings and structures. He explained that staff felt a Passive Recreational use could accommodate the uses identified in the Coast Vision Plan, but in a more unstructured setting that is more conducive to passive recreational land use designation and more conducive to the geologic instability of the site. Therefore, staff has changed its recommendation and is asking the Planning Commission to look at the site as Passive Recreational; however staff is not opposed to Active Recreational if the Commission feels the uses are more consistent with the Active Recreational use. He noted that anything built at this site will still have to be looked at from a geologic standpoint through the City Geologist. He stated many letters have been submitted, and have been attached to the staff report. He noted that most of the letters prefer an Active Recreational designation for the property. He stated staff was recommending the Commission discuss the item and provide comments to staff. He also noted that staff was also suggesting the Commission may want to discuss the issues and continue the public hearing to October 22nd to allow staff to send out additional notification to the public regarding this subject. Commissioner Tetreault noted that, despite all of the correspondence received, there is nobody in the audience to speak on the subject. He asked staff if a parcel is zoned for Active Recreational, that passive recreation can still take place at the site. Deputy Director Pfost stated that was correct, that passive recreation uses would not be excluded. Commissioner Gerstner stated that Active Recreational also opens up the opportunity for uses other than those already discussed such as horse keeping, softball, etc. However, in any event, any proposal would have to go through extensive City reviews and approvals before being allowed. Commissioner Tetreault stated quite a few things have been discussed with respect to this property, and that without any specific plans to go forward with anything it is very difficult to zone the property. He suggested the City may want to wait until there is an actual proposal for the site and at that time move forward with a zone change to make the land use fit the proposal. He noted staff is recommending the area be zoned passive; however several letters were submitted by the public recommending the area be zoned active. Director Rojas explained that staff is trying to plan what this area should be rather than be reactionary. He noted that there seems to be agreement that the area should be used for public recreation; it is just the level of recreation that is in question. He explained that staff's proposal of passive was not meant to eliminate the possibility of an equestrian facility at the site, but possibly a smaller version of what is in the Vision Plan. He noted that part of the reason for staff's recommendation of passive is the additional information that is coming in from the City Geologist and Public Works about the instability of the area and the work that will have to be done in the area to help remediate the landslide. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 12 Commissioner Nelson felt there were two alternatives, either recreational passive or recreational active. He always felt the City should listen to the people who respond to the public notices, and the vast majority of the public who responded to this notice were in favor of recreational active. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the majority of comments are in favor of recreational active; however there are very few comments in total. He felt that there are more residents in the City who may have an opinion, and he was in favor of getting more comments from the residents before making a decision. He added his concern that the area is unstable and he would not like to see the area developed as active recreation and then have to close the area to public use because the City can't maintain the area in a safe condition for an active use. He stated he may be in favor of an active designation, but he is not ready to make that decision without hearing from more residents. Commissioner Nelson moved to change the land use at Gateway Park to a Recreational Active designation. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Commissioner Tetreault move to continue the public hearing for the Gateway Park land use change to October 22, 2013, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. The motion was approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of August 27 2013 Commissioner Nelson made a minor change to page one of the minutes and a typo on page seven. Commissioner Gerstner noted a typo on page six of the minutes. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0). 6. Minutes of September 10, 2013 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (4-0-1) with Vice Chairman Leon abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on July 9 2013 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 13 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 24,2013 Page 14