Loading...
PC MINS 20140624 Approved 7/22/1 4 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to move item No. 4 to be heard after item No. 2. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the their June 17, 2014 meeting the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance that requires any repair or replacement of walls or fences along arterial streets to be done in a manner that matches pre-existing tract perimeter fences and walls. The City Council also continued, at the applicant's request, the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a commercial antenna on the 7-Eleven building roof to an unspecified date. Finally, he noted that the Council awarded a city the to Greg Pfost for 18 years of service, as he has moved on to become Community Development Director for the City of Laguna Beach. Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2, three items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3, and one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Golden Cove Center Master Sign Program review (Case No. ZON2010- 00104): 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Director Rojas noted that staff is requesting to amend the recommendation that the public hearing be continued to July 8, 2014 and change that recommendation to continue the public hearing to July 22, 2014. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to July 22, 2014 as requested by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. 2. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. Zon2014-00008): 28117 Ella Road Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to July 8, 2014, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00095): 30204 Via Borica Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, reviewing the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She noted a property in the neighborhood that was approved for a similar Variance by the Planning Commission in 1979, with a subsequent addition and revision in later years. She explained the proposed project mimics that structure. She displayed a photo of the subject property taken from the street, noting that the silhouette is barely visible because it is set back significantly from the front property line and the terraced design minimizes any bulk and mass. She stated that staff feels all applicable findings can be made in order to recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Gerstner questioned why this project required a Variance application as opposed to a Height Variation application. Associate Planner Kim noted staff applied both Height Variation and Variance findings to this application, explaining that the area from 16 feet to 26 feet in height was considered as a Height Variation and Height Variation findings would apply and the area from 26 feet to 32 feet in height had the findings for the Variance application applied. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2014 Page 2 Chairman Leon opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner James moved to approve the project as conditioned in the staff report, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Commissioner Gerstner stated he would be voting against the motion, explaining that even though there is a house down the street they may be similar, in his view this request does not have extraordinary circumstances to support a Variance request. He stated that this house may have a detached garage, however this is how the house was constructed and he did not think this constituted an extraordinary circumstance. He stated the City usually has a high standard for approving Variances and has seen Variances denied for similar circumstances. Chairman Leon stated that he felt this was an extreme circumstance in that these lots were carved out of relatively significant slopes, which may have dictated how these homes were built to help minimize grading. He felt it was an unhappy circumstance that triggers the 32 feet by the fact that the structures are being combined. He felt that in terms of the overall mass and scale, having a roof that connects the two structures isn't going to change the sense of scale on the street. Therefore, he would vote in favor of the project based on a practical matter, as putting in the elevator and having the structures connected will increase the utility of the property owner's enjoyment of the home. The motion to approve the project as recommended by staff, thereby approving PC Resolution 2014-16 was approved, (6-1), with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting. Commissioner Tomblin noted that while voting in favor of the project he understood Commissioner Gerstner's concerns with the approval of the Variance. Commissioner Cruikshank also noted that the concerns expressed are valid if this were a new project, and also noted that if he had concerns with bulk and mass or view issues he would not have voted in favor of the project. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00510): 29926 Avenida Anillo Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, noting this public hearing was continued from the April 8, 2014 meeting at the request of the applicant, who was responding to comments received from the neighbors as well as concerns raised by Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2014 Page 3 staff in regards to bulk and mass and overall scale of the project. She discussed the scope of the proposed two story addition, noting articulation features that have been added to soften the look of the project as seen from Crest Road. She stated that although staff did not feel the proposed addition would result in any view impacts, staff did receive a comment letter from a neighbor. Staff visited the neighboring property at 30015 Avenida Tranquila and displayed a photo taken from the property showing the view and the silhouette for the proposed project. She noted that felt the property owner would have quite an expansive view if the foliage from surrounding properties was reduced, and therefore staff did not think the proposed addition created a significant view impairment when considering the entirety of the view. She explained that staff also looked at the cumulative view impact and did not feel a cumulative view impact would be created if neighboring homes were to construct a similar addition. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Cruikshank noted the foliage seen from the home on Avenida Tranquila, and asked staff if there are other structures behind this foliage that can't been seen through the trees. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that it is often very difficult to tell if there are other structures behind the foliage. She stated that there could be structures behind this foliage, however because of the topography of the neighborhood, the chances of ridgelines beyond that foliage being in that specific area are slim. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Jose Arche (applicant) stated he was the architect for the project. He explained the reasons for the proposed addition. He stated he was available for any questions. Anil Gupta stated he is the owner of the home and bought the home as a fixer upper, noting that nothing of significance had been done to the home since it was built. He explained that his first proposed design raised concerns from the neighbors and he and his architect tried to look at all of the concerns and address each one. He felt that the current design addresses all of the concerns of the neighbors. Robert Keller stated he has seen the modifications that have been proposed, and appreciated these modifications, especially those as seen from the street. He stated there is still some concern on his part that the view may be somewhat out of character with the rest of the homes on Crest Road, noting that the house will be the largest house in the immediate neighborhood. He explained that currently the largest house in the neighborhood is approximately 300 square feet smaller than this proposed home, however it is on a much larger lot than the applicant's lot. Jose Arche (in rebuttal) explained that the proposed home will only cover approximately 38 percent of the lot. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2014 Page 4 Commissioner Tomblin commented that he does not have a problem with the size of the structure, but did feel the front elevation looked bulky and massive from the street. He felt that compared with the designs of the other homes in the neighborhood, this structure would be a bit out of character. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. . Commissioner Gerstner referred to the front elevation, pointing out that the proposed new front door has a story and a half element over the top of it, and asked staff if that type of expression over the entrance was something the Design Guidelines tried to discourage. Director Rojas agreed that the City tries to minimize the grand entry type of feature. He stated that the Guidelines are merely guidelines and not rules or regulations. He read from the Guidelines in which the Guidelines said the front door entrance shall be designed to be proportional to the size of the residence and not dominate the visual appearance of the structure. This suggestion does not mean that a two-story entrance is prohibited. Commissioner Tomblin pointed out his concerns with the appearance of a 26 foot solid wall on the front fagade with only the balcony extending out. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the architect would come back to the podium. Chairman Leon re-opened the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner addressed Mr. Arche, and noted the comments about the bulk and mass from the Commission. He stated that looking at the front elevation it appears to be a very flat detail with the exception of the balcony. He noted the existing house is a more classic post and beam construction with the windows and the eaves. He asked Mr. Arche if he ever considered detailing the new structure with some of the same architectural features found in the existing home. Mr. Arche stated that he did plan to dress the house up to match more of the existing condition. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Arche if he and the owner might be amenable to looking at modifying the fenestration to make them tie together more. Mr. Arche felt that would be something to be considered. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2014 Page 5 Commissioner Tomblin echoed Commissioner Gerstner's comments and concerns. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner offered an alternate motion to ask the applicant to make some modifications to the proposed project consistent with the Commission's comments, which include fenestration and other surface elements on the new elevation such that it feels more consistent with the remaining original portion of the house, and present those changes to the Planning Commission the July 22, 2014 meeting, seconded by Commissioner James. The motion was approved, (7- 0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00104): 4002 Admirable Drive Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She showed photos of homes in the neighborhood with similar second floor additions above the garage. She also noted there are several homes in the immediate neighborhood with non-conforming front yard setbacks, which average approximately five feet in encroachment. In regards to view impacts, she explained staff visited three properties with potential view impacts that could be caused by this proposed project, and showed photos taken from these homes. She explained that staff determined that there was not significant view impairment from these three properties. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings in order to recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Chris Gunderson (architect) stated he was available for any questions. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the detailing on this residence is very consistent as well as the cantilever over the garage. Chairman Leon stated it was unfortunate for the house across the street in terms of the view impairment, however the rules are very clear that the view is not looked at from the second floor unless the primary living area is on the second floor. He suggested that this neighbor has the option of appealing the Planning Decision to the City Council and Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2014 Page 6 get a decision that is not necessarily quite so closely based on the rules the Planning Commission has to follow. The motion to approve the project was recommended by staff, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-17 was approved, (7-0). 6. General Plan Update — Climate Change Issue Director Rojas explained that Deputy Director Pfost is no longer with the City and staff will have to finish the General Plan update without him. He explained that the discussion on greenhouse gas emissions is a relatively new issue with regards to the General Plan, and there have been some legal issues in which some cities have not addressed the topic in their General Plan. From staff's perspective, it is in the best interest of the City from a legal perspective to address the topic in the General Plan. He also explained that most cities hire a consultant to write this section for the General Plan, and the City was close to hiring a consultant when it was discovered that the South Bay COG was going to use the same consultant on their climate action work and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, staff decided to wait for COG to get the information. While waiting for this information, staff prepared a report using a bare bones, minimum discussion recognizing that staff is still waiting for data from COG. With that, he thought staff could get the Commission's reaction to the report and make sure this is the direction the Commission wanted to go. Therefore, he stated staff is looking for direction from the Commission. He noted that since Deputy Director Pfost is now gone, the General Plan update will have to be reassigned to someone else in the Department and it may take some time to get that person up to speed on this. Commissioner Emenhiser understood the Director's intention in terms of the goal of completing the General Plan the current staffing situation. However, he noted that the City has done without a General Plan revision for thirty five years and hoped that the Deputy Director's departure will not slow down the work on the General Plan too much. Vice Chairman Nelson felt that this section should be kept simple, perhaps a simple statement. Chairman Leon agreed, noting his philosophy that less is more. He wondered if some other City has written a greenhouse gas section that staff could review. Director Rojas noted that the Deputy Director did look at other city's General Plan updates, and felt this section was fairly involved and not what he felt this City was looking for in terms of simplicity. However, he will continue to review other city's documents. Commissioner James noted in a previous conversation with the Director, that it was mentioned that COG was not expected to come out with their information and findings this year. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2014 Page 7 Director Rojas explained that part of the delay has been getting information from COG. He stated that COG's Climate Action Plan is due in 2015 and staff expects the finalized greenhouse gas emission numbers some time this year. However, unexpected delays could postpone those numbers until next year. Commissioner James stated that a General Plan that basically says the City is going to make a plan is not sufficient for him. He agreed that pages and pages of information is probably not necessary, however he felt that merely saying the City is going to come up with a plan later on is not carrying out the Commission's duty. He encouraged staff to come up with something more that will at least meet the State's requirements. Chairman Leon asked if it would be helpful to have a sub-committee to work directly with staff on this issue. Commissioner James indicated that he would be interested in being on such a sub- committee. Director Rojas stated that any input from the Commission would be helpful. Commissioner Emenhiser was concerned that we have a thirty-five year old General Plan without outdated maps, graphs, and information and, as much as he appreciates the interest in making this particular chapter as relevant, modern, and detailed as possible, he would hate to see this chapter hold up the other eleven chapters the Planning Commission and staff has been working on for the past several years. He was also concerned that while the City is working on the perfect climate change chapter, the State may come up with another mandate and the City may never get the General Plan update completed. Commissioner Cruikshank agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser's comments. He was also concerned about some of the affirmative statements, and felt the City could comply with the law without being so affirmative on some of the statements. He supported the idea of a sub-committee to help staff research this information,.and stated he would be willing to participate. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Al Sattler commented that there is at least one number in the draft that is incorrect, pointing out on page 39 that the sea rise projection is incorrect. However, with a few corrections he felt this was a very good start, and also agreed that being minimalistic was a good idea. Vice Chairman Nelson noted that this is a Rancho Palos Verdes statement on climate change. He noted that this City has no industry and none of the typical things that cities Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2014 Page 8 will usually site in this type of document. He asked Mr. Sattler what he felt could be put in this document as Rancho Palos Verdes contribution to easing climate change. Mr. Sattler answered that some cities are making it easier to have electric vehicle hook- ups. He did not think he would list specific things that the City is not already doing. He felt the Green Ordinance was good and there are things coming through at the State level. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Director Rojas stated that he would like to give this section to the subcommittee, consisting of Commissioners Cruickshank and James, and wait for their comments. He added that staff will do research and identify cities that have had General Plan updates approved with greenhouse gas emission discussions and give that information to the subcommittee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. May 13, 2014 Minutes Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (6-0) with Commissioner Emenhiser abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 8. May 27, 2014 Minutes Commissioner James moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on July 8, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2014 Page 9