Loading...
PC MINS 20140909 Approved October CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Nelson at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 2,9301 Hawthorne Boulevard. Vice Chairman Nelson asked Commissioner Emenhiser to serve as Chairman for this meeting, FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Cruikshank led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, and Vice Chairman Nelson. Absent: Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Leon were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their September 2nd meeting the City Council initiated a code amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission, to improve the City's exterior lighting regulations. The Council also adopted a policy for identifying the "viewing station"for purposes of assessing projects outside of visual corridors within the City's Coastal Zone. Director Rojas distributed correspondence received from Green Hills Memorial Park and related correspondence from the City Attorney. He noted that near the end of the Green Hills correspondence there is a request from Green Hills to move the public hearing up sooner than October 28th. He explained that in the Items to be Placed on Future Agendas section of this agenda this issue can be discussed. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Height Variation, Gradin q & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064): 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Director Rojas explained that the public hearing for this item was closed, a decision was made, and the Resolution memorializing that decision is now before the Commission. He noted he has several speaker slips for the item, and explained that the item will be pulled from the Consent Calendar in order to hear the speaker. He noted that discussion should be limited to whether or not the Resolution reflects the Commission's decision, as any other discussion would require a new public hearing be noticed. He also noted that the project deadline is September 18th, so the Commission really doesn't have the option to renotice a future public hearing if it wishes to do so, Sam Hassan (applicant) distributed a letter to the Commissioners. Kevin Hamilton, Donald Grogdon, and Vincent Liu thanked the Commission for the time they put into hearing this application. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Vice Chairman Nelson stated he had supported this project from the beginning, and therefore could not support this Resolution He noted that at the last meeting the Commission had voted that there would be a letter to the City Council requesting that any appeal fees be waived. He did not see anything in the Resolution relating to that, and would like to see that in the Resolution. Director Rojas stated that it had been staff's intention to include the Commission's request for a fee waiver in the staff report to the City Council, However, it would not be a problem to add it to the Resolution. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to amend the motion to add a section to the Resolution reflecting the Commission's request that the City Council waive the appeal fee if this project is appealed, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser., The Consent Calendar was approved and PC Resolution 2014-24, as amended, was adopted, (3-2) with Commissioners Crulkshank and Nelson dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. LCP Amendment (ZON2014-00329) Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2014 Page 2 Director Rojas explained this is a proposed LCP amendment which the Planning Commission is required to hear before going on to the City Council. He explained there are a couple of options available in regards to the CEQA processing of this item. One option is to present the language to the Commission then prepare the CEQA analysis of it and present the Planning Commission's recommendation with the CEQA analysis to the City Council. The other option is to prepare the CEQA analysis first so that the Commission will see the CEQA analysis along with the proposed amendment, and then forward everything, together to the City Council, He explained that the City Attorney and staff felt the better approach was to prepare the CEQA analysis before presenting the amendment to the Planning Commission. As a result, staff is recommending this item be continued to the October 14th meeting so that the CEQA analysis can be prepared. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to explain why this issue is being raised so many years after the Trump flagpole was approved. Director Rojas briefly explained the City Council approved the flagpole on the Trump property in 2007, however the approval was contingent upon Coastal Commission approval. He stated the Coastal Commission heard the application earlier this year, and while the Coastal Commission clearly saw there was community support for the flagpole, they felt that from a legal aspect they could not just approve the flagpole because the City's Coastal Specific Plan does not address flagpoles or how high a flagpole can be. Therefore, the Coastal Commission said if the City were to amend its LCP to allow flagpoles, they may then be able to approve the current flagpole at Trump National. He noted the LCP applies to the entire coastal zone so staff has to make sure the amendment is crafted in such a way as to meet Council direction to allow the Trump National flagpole while not inadvertently allowing other similar tall flagpoles. He explained that the City Council approved a Variance for the flagpole, and one of the findings is that the flagpole is consistent with the City's Coastal Specific Plan, and that is the finding the Coastal Commission cannot make, as they questioned how it can be consistent when the Coastal Specific Plan does not address flagpoles, Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to October 14, 20114, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Approved, (4-0) with Commissioner James recused. Commissioner James explained he recused himself from this item, as he lives very close to Trump National and can see the flagpole from his residence. 3. Height Variation (ZON2014-00181): 28642 Mt Shasta Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, briefly explaining the scope of the project. She stated that staff feels the project is compatible with the neighborhood, does not create any additional privacy impacts to surrounding properties, and there are no view impairment impacts caused by the proposed addition. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report and Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 3 Commissioner Emenhiser opened the public hearing. John Park stated he lives at 28638 Mt Rushmore Road, and pointed out his house on the aerial photo. He stated that from his property the silhouette is clearly visible and is obstructing his view of the Palos Verdes hills. He felt this will negatively impact the value of his home, and was therefore opposed to the project. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they felt there was a view impact from this residence. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that staff had not visited this property, as this is the first time staff has heard there are any concerns from this resident. She noted, however, that a view of the Palos Verdes hillside is not a protected view under the City's Guidelines. Director Rojas added that there is a "near view" defined in the Ordinance of pastoral settings and open space, however developed areas such as homes on a hillside are not considered a pastoral view. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. PC Resolution 2014-25 was approved, (5-0). 4. Appeal of FencelWall Permit (ZON2014-00202): 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the history of the application and showed pictures of the view from the appellant's viewing area. Because there was so much contention on both sides of this issue he visited the appellant's property to do a view analysis. He noted that staff had previously done the view analysis from the middle of the room, which the appellant had said was their best view area. However, he felt it was important to take the view from the window, as that is typically where staff takes the view, and said position afford the most expansive view. With that, he showed staff's determination of where and how high the solid wall could be placed on the Hesser property, as well as the height and location of the transparent barrier so that the Shahbazian's view would not be significantly impaired. He explained that after the appeal was filed by the Shahbazians, Mr. Hesser came to the City and received approval to build an accessory structure in the rear yard of his property. Mr. Rojas explained this was a ministerial decision with an over-the-counter approval, and there is no appeal to that decision. He noted that this accessory structure does interfere with the view that staff was trying to protect when determining the wall height. He noted that he performed a site visit to the Hesser property and confirmed that, per the City's Code, it is an accessory structure. However, a question was also raised by the Shahbazian's attorney as to whether or not this structure could be considered a wall. In speaking to the City Attorney, staff felt that it could be construed as a wall and therefore subject to the wall height limits of seven feet. With that, Mr. Hesser lowered the height of the structure to seven feet. He explained that the Fence/Wall Permit process is only for walls within the setback, and this seven foot wall is outside of the setback. To be sure, Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2014 Page 4 staff is requiring Mr. Hesser provide a stamped survey confirming this. With that, he stated staff's recommendation is for the Commission to uphold the Director's decision. Commissioner Gerstner asked if one of the criteria looked at by the City in approving an accessory structure is that it doesn't block a view, Director Rojas answered that is not a criteria looked at by staff, as an accessory structure is allowed up to twelve feet in height regardless of whether it impairs a view. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify how and from what area the view is taken from. Director Rojas explained that, as is typically done, staff identifies the room with the best and most important view. In this case the living room was identified as the viewing area. Once that is done staff typically stands at the edge of that view, usually at a window or a sliding glass door to assess a view's importance. Sometimes applicants will indicate that they get a better view from sitting on their couch. The Guidelines say the view should be taken from a standing position unless the view is from a sitting area. He explained the critical factor is staff's analysis is whether the best and most important view is seen from a standing or sitting position. He explained when he was doing the view analysis, the Shahbazians pointed out that they felt they were afforded better view protection from the back of the living room, However, Director Rojas noted that if the best and most important view is determined to be from the couch at the back of the room, then that becomes the best and most important view for all future applications. He explained that sitting on the couch at the back of the room provides a limited tunnel view while standing at the windows there is almost a 180 degree view. Vice Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Rojas if he saw the various tapes at the site, the one he placed as well as the one placed by Senior Planner Kim, He noted there is approximately a two foot difference between the two. Director Rojas stated he saw the yellow tape and the blue tape, however he noted that he did not place either of those tapes. He stated that he thought Senior Planner Kim placed the yellow tape and he was not aware of who placed the blue tape. Vice Chairman Nelson discussed the maintenance of the proposed acrylic portion of the wall. He asked who was responsible for maintaining the clearness of the acrylic. Director Rojas answered the applicant is responsible, since it is his wall. Vice Chairman Nelson discussed the acrylic portion of the wall, noting that in a few years it may become opaque and no view can be seen through that portion. He asked if there was a way to eliminate the acrylic portion of the wall. Director Rojas stated that if the applicant does not maintain the transparent portion of the wall, it will become a code enforcement issues. However, if the Commission does Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 5 not want to deal with the maintenance issues, the Commission can eliminate the acrylic portion of the wall. Commissioner Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Larry Helfman (representing the appellant) stated the reason the Shahbazians appealed this decision was their concern over the preservation of the views in the neighborhood. He explained that because of these views, most of the homes in the neighborhood have very limited fencing, and many have chain link fencing in the rear to help preserve their neighbors' views. He showed photos of the view from the Shahbazian residence before the new wall was installed. He stated the Shahbazians contend there was also work done to the retaining wall by Mr. Hesser, as part of the retaining wall was removed and grading was done. He noted that for as long as the Shahbazians have lived in their home there has always been a chain link fence along this portion of the property and there has never been a view impact. He explained what staff approved was a four foot solid fence with a two-foot tall acrylic piece on top of the fence. He was concerned with maintenance issues as well as the way the acrylic was to be framed into place, which could also block a view. He explained the Shahbazians were asking the Planning Commission to consider all of the factors in the Code, most importantly that the fence should not be allowed to cause a significant impairment of their view. He stated there was also a concern that the wall be in compliance with the Code. He noted the Code limits the height of the wall to 8 feet from Mr. Hesser's grade. He felt staff's approval was based on an assumption that the retaining wall is 1.5 feet, however at different points the retaining wall is 2 feet in height, and 2 feet 6 inches in height. This would then allow the wall to be higher than 8 feet, He stated the Shahbazians are requesting the entire fence be conditioned to be at a maximum height of 4 feet and that the fence be tapered by five inches starting at 15 1/z feet from the applicant's structure, and taper again at 23 feet from the structure. Commissioner James asked Mr. Helfman if any effort has been made to mediate this situation. Mr. Helfman answered that the Hessers have privacy concerns and the Shahbazians have view concerns and there have been discussions to try to alleviate the concerns of both parties, however no progress has yet been made. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if the yellow tape that was in several of the pictures was placed by staff. Director Rojas stated he did not place any tape when he was at the property to do his view analysis. However, he thought that Senior Planner So Kim either placed the tape or asked someone to place the tape to help with her analysis. Brenda Hesser explained when she and her husband moved into their home in 2006 their patio and yard was separated from the neighbor's property by a chain link fence and a hedge, and showed a photo of the area. She stated that for the past 8 years the Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2014 Page 6 hedge and fence have maintained a level of privacy and security. She explained that several months ago they approached the Shahbazians about their hillside deck invading their privacy. With that, the Shahbazians removed the hedge. She showed a photo taken from the Shahbazians deck looking into her backyard and bedroom area, as well as a photo taken from her yard looking into the Shahbazians backyard. She then showed a photo of a trellis that was built outside of the setback which she stated is actually lower than the height of the previous hedge. She stated the trellis is code compliant being less than 7 feet in height and with a 61.5 inch setback, and this has been verified by a survey. She then showed the photo taken by staff of the view from the Shahbazian residence. She noted the yellow tape which indicates the height of the proposed wall and pointed out the ridgeline of the houses beyond. She stated that she agrees with the Director's decision that a 4 foot sold wall with a 2.5 foot acrylic does not create a view impairment, and therefore the appeal should be denied, Hossein Shahbazian (appellant) stated purchased his home 25 years ago for the view. He stated that suddenly he lost 40 percent of his ocean view without any type of notice. He felt that with that and the loss of his kitchen view he felt like he was under house arrest in his own home. He stated he wants it back to the way it was without the view loss. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Shahbazian if he removed the hedge that was existing. Mr. Shahbazian explained that the hedge was on his property. Commissioner Cruikshank questioned if the hedge had not been removed, if this case would now even be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Shahbazian explained that if the Hessers had not touched the fence and left it at four feet as they promised there would not be a problem. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Shahbazian if he removed the hedge, Mr. Shahbazian answered he removed the hedge, but it was on his side of the property line. He stated again that all he wants is for everything to be the way it was. Commissioner Gerstner explained that it was Mr. Shahbazian's right to remove the hedge on his property, however he noted that the hedge, in the neighbor's opinion, afforded him privacy in his yard and bedroom. Mr. Shahbazian stated that if the neighbors had not moved the fence he would not have cut the hedge, Commissioner Gerstner continued that in order to regain some privacy, the neighbor felt it was necessary to get approval to build the privacy structure which is now on the property, which has given them back their privacy. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2014 Page 7 Mr. Shahbazian did not understand how the neighbors got approval for this structure. Vice Chairman Nelson noted the yellow tape on the fence that was placed by staff, and asked Mr. Shahbazian if he felt that would give him the view he had before this all started, and if that was an acceptable height to him. Mr. Shahbazian answered that was an acceptable height, it would give the neighbors their privacy and give him his view. Vicky Shahbazian stated that the original picture shown by staff was not really accurate, as the main view is not seen by standing in front of the side of her home. She explained the hedge was on her property and there was a chain link fence, and the reason the hedge was cut was because Mr. Hesser had started changing the fence and started putting up a 7-foot tall fence. She stated she then erected a 4-foot fence, as requested by Mr. Hesser, and tapered the end of the fence to preserve her view. She explained her attorney and her son tried to negotiate some type of resolution to this situation, but nothing has worked. Darrel Hesser displayed staff's photo taken from the Shahbazian's viewing area, and indicated that a four foot tall fence straight across would block only a view of the houses and roofs below. He stated that if there was question about the clear acrylic top, he would be happy to change that material to something else. He explained he needs something up at the end to prevent his dog from jumping over the fence. Commissioner Gerstner asked if that happens, would Mr. Hesser remove the privacy structure on his property. Mr. Hesser explained that he has already lowered the trellis and he believed the Shahbazians can now see over the privacy structure. Cyrus Shahbazian clarified that what is being appealed is the Director's approval of an 8'foot combination wall in the Hesser's rear yard. He stated that the 8-feet included a 4- foot tall solid wall on a 1.5 foot tall retaining wall, with a 2.5 foot tall transparent barrier on top. He discussed the potential view impairment, noting the view assessment was based on a standing position from the living room of the residence. He showed a photo of where the Director made his determination that a four-foot wall would not obstruct a view. He then noted in the same Code section which says views will be taken from a standing position unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position. He stated that his family and guests sit down in the living room and dining room, and because the living room and dining room are within the designated viewing area, he stated the Shahbazians request the view assessment be taken from a seated position rather than a standing position. He explained that during the appeal process the Hessers erected a trellis in their yard and that the approval was a ministerial approval given by staff, knowing it would cause a substantial view impairment. He did not think the structure built on the Hesser property is a trellis, but Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2014 Page 8 rather a fence. He stated this structure is inconsistent with City policy and the General Plan, and was sure that there is not a similar structure anywhere in the City, Sara Shahbazian felt this situation has gotten out of control and needs to be settled. She stated that one of the most upsetting things during this process was that when staff was at the property and put up the tape, they were led to believe this was the final decision, yet the decision was altered. She was upset that the Hessers were allowed to get the trellis approved, knowing that it would block a view, and that the approval could not be challenged. She questioned how the City could allow this trellis to be approved when it will cause such a negative impact to the property value of her parents' home. Maurice Rahimi stated he moved to Rancho Palos Verdes specifically for its views, not to be able to surround his property with fences for privacy. He questioned why Mr, Rojas overruled the decision of his staff in regards to the height of the fence. He suggested that if the Hessers want privacy in their home they may want to consider tinting their windows so that nobody can see inside, He encouraged the Commission to make a decision to maintain the beauty and value of this community. He stated that the precedence set today will be something that will be followed for years to come. Dereck Taylor felt this situation may have gotten out of hand, and felt part of the problem is the process. He felt that the way the code was written was bureaucracy at its worst. He stated the City is required to protect the view. Mansoureh Rahimi stated she has known the Shahbazians for over twenty-five years, and has enjoyed the views from their home. She felt the current situation has obstructed their view. She noted the Hessers want a taller fence so their dog won't jump over it, but noted there is also a fence at the rear of the property and asked if they are also going to build a taller fence down there. She hoped the neighbor would consider fixing the situation they have created. Shohreh Taylor stated one of the main reasons she came to this area was for the view. She too has known the Shahbazians for over twenty-five years and she has always enjoyed the view from their home. She felt it was a real shame to ruin such a lovely view. Missy Aguirre stated the Shahbazians are her aunt and uncle and allowed her to live in their home for a time. She stated that she has never seen such a beautiful view from a home. She felt this situation has gone too far, it's unfair, and hoped a resolution will be reached this evening. Jim Howe felt it was important for the Commission to understand that the reason this all started was the removal of the hedge. He explained that it was his understanding that the chain link fence was on the Shahbazian property and the hedge was on the Hesser property, and the Hessers were never asked if the hedge could be removed. He stated the Hessers deserve to have their privacy, and without that hedge or a fence, there is none. Planning Commission Knutes September 9,2014 Page 9 Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Howe whose property the hedge was on and who cut the hedge. Mr. Howe answered the hedge was on the Hesser property and the Shahbazians cut down the hedge. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they could clarify whose property the hedge was on. Director Rojas stated that when at the site he saw the retaining wall on the Hesser property with a small amount of distance between the wall and the survey line, Janice Howe stated there was a five to six foot tall fence in place on the Hesser property until early this year. She stated she agreed with staff's decision to allow a four- foot tall solid wall with a clear 2 Y2-foot tall top. Cyrus Shahbazian (in rebuttal) stated much has been said about privacy. He referred to the staff report where it is stated there are no privacy issues in the Hesser's backyard, and any privacy concerns in the house can be alleviated with some type of window covering. He also noted that the way the neighborhood is configured, one can stand in any backyard and see down into several backyards down the street. He disagreed with staff's statement that the approval of the trellis is not appealable, and noted in the code the section that he felt allowed the decision to be appealed. He showed several photos of the view taken from the living room of the Shahbazian residence and demonstrated how he felt the view will be impacted. He stated the Shahbazians were asking for a reasonable resolution to this situation. Darrel Hesser (in rebuttal) felt that what should be looked at is not just the preservation of the Shahbazian's view, but some type of balance between the view and his right to privacy. He explained that the four-foot wall would still afford the Shahbazians their view while giving his family some privacy. He reiterated that he would be happy to substitute the acrylic material for something else if that would help alleviate concerns. He added that he would also be willing to extend the chain link fence up to match the front end of the Shahbazian deck to preserve their view over the rear of his property. He explained that he doesn't want to put up a wall that blocks his neighbors' view, and would like to find a reasonable solution to satisfy both parties. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to review their recommendation. Director Rojas explained that, because of the contentious nature of this application, he performed a site visit to look at the view as he felt the staff's decision might be appealed. He stated that the code finding that must be made for approval is that the fence or wall will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property. He noted that Chapter 17.02 of the Code defines viewing area as the location where the best and most important view exists. He then explained he made the Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2014 Page 10 determination of whether there is significant view impairment to the entirety of the view from the Shahbazian living room. He noted the view from their living room is nearly 180 degrees, from Catalina Island to Malibu,, He also noted there was the issue of where to stand when assessing the view. He stated he consulted the code, and the code defines the viewing area as the area the City determines where the best and most important view exists. He noted the Shahbazians made it clear,that they felt they were afforded a better view from a sifting position, however he did not think that was defensible and consistent with the code. This is because when one sits further back in the room the view frame narrows, and a significant portion of the view is eliminated, including Catalina Island, Thus, a better and more expansive view is attained by standing at the sliding glass window. He explained that the code also states that once a viewing area has been determined, that viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent application. Therefore, it was his determination that the best and most important view should be taken from a standing position in the Shahb,azian living room, as it afforded the greatest view protection to the Shahbazians, Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they had an opinion on acrylic versus glass on top of the wall. Director Rojas had no opinion on glass versus acrylic, Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner James that this issue should have been mediated some time ago, and unfortunately the decision made by the Planning Commission will not make everyone happy. He stated he was in favor of staff's recommendation. Commissioner James asked Director Rojas why he changed staff's preliminary decision of stepping the wall height to a uniform height of four feet straight across the length of the wall. Director Rojas explained staff did their analysis from a seated position on the couch, however as he explained earlier, he felt that determining the viewing area from a standing position at the window was more consistent with the Code's language of what constitutes the best and most important view. With that, the approved height of the wall was modified from the preliminary assessment to allow it up to the height where it was not significantly impairing a view, He added that he thought this decision was more defensible if challenged by the applicant as to why his wall was required to be lower than it had to be. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff if the Commission is to not consider the trellis when making their decision in regards to the view and the wall, Director Rojas explained that, in reviewing the matter with the City Attorney, staff believes the trellis is legal and meets all code requirements. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2014 Page 11 Vice Chairman Nelson moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to allow a four-foot high solid wood fence not topped with any transparent material. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staffs recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution was adopted, (4-1) with Commissioner James dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 23, 201 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 12