Loading...
PC MINS 20020625Approved CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES July 21)T PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7:00 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Chairman Cartwright led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. Present Commissioners Duran Reed, Lyon, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Long, and Chairman Cartwright Absent: Commissioners Cote and Mueller were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Assistant Planner Yu, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Duran Reed suggested hearing the items in the following order: 2, 3, 4, 5, 1. The Commission agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence regarding agenda item No. 3 as well as several copies of e-mail received at pcaPrpv com Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council had adopted the Wind Energy Ordinance, overturned the Planning Commission decision on the Nancy Road project, and had their first meeting regarding the revised Long Point project. The Commission discussed the need to perform site visits and asked staff to make sure the record was clear in the minutes as to which Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Tomblin reported that he had received a phone call from, but did not speak to, Mr. Ortolano Jr He also reported that he had attended a meeting as part of the Youth Peninsula League with the YMCA Development Group regarding some potential new projects on the peninsula. Vice Chairman Long reported that he had received an e-mail from Mr. Ortolano requesting his phone number, as the one on the web page is incorrect. however, after e -mailing Mr. Ortolano his correct phone number, he did not receive any phone calls from him CONTINUED BUSINESS °' .. . `�rr77it N�. 2151. i�ic��r xcE.�•�ti��7 P�rrt�i • 3_ �.�,. �>>�nt Na. 75: 3747 Coolf7ci�yht� Drive Director/Secretary Rous explained that the continuance was being requested to allow the consultant engineer additional time to review design work for the cul-de-sac and hammerhead turnarounds. Commissioner Duran Reed moved to coriftue the public headng to the JuEy 9, 2002 a; Commission meeting, seconded by Cnf111111tiS Ilii TCi7fllf.)ft. Approved, '>-Eli i Vice Chairman Long and Commissioner Tomblin noted that they would not be in attendance at the July 9 meeting. Commissioner Duran Reed also noted that there was a possibility she would not be at the July 9 meeting. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the City Attorney could not be present at the July 9 meeting, and therefore it may be continued to the following meeting. However, he noted that there was a time constraint regarding the adoption of the negative Declaration 3. ARp ai of Fence, Wall, and Hedge P Pian K QC aza No. ZOo N200 I -00�l ��De 32451 Searaven Drive Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She explained that the item was an appeal of the Director's approval to allow a portion of the existing hedge to be maintained at a height of 5 feet and a portion of the hedge to be lowered to a height of 2 feet 6 inches. She explained that the appellant was requesting to maintain the entire hedge at a height of 5 feet. She explained the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit and the purpose of the permit. She stated that staff had performed a site visit and determined that the existing hedge significantly impairs the coastline view from the viewing area at 32459 Searaven Drive As such, staff is of the opinion that the hedge should be trimmed to improve the view from the viewing area To mitigate privacy impact concerns to the spa located in the rear yard, staff suggested leaving the hedge at a height of 5 feet in the rear area. As such, staff was recommending the Planning Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 2 Commission deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's decision to approve the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit. Mart y Foster 32451 Searaven Drive stated she was appealing the mandated trimming of her hedge She explained that in August 2001 she was before the View Restoration Commission in response to a view preservation permit filed by the upslope neighbor, and was found to be in compliance. Subsequently, she was required to apply for a Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit for the existing hedge. She displayed several pictures on an overhead projector showing the hedge. She noted that her spa is very visible from the upslope property and the hedge shields the spa. She stated that the rear yard is a major extension of their living space and they spend a great deal of time in the yard She felt that trimming the hedge would allow for the loss of a great deal of their privacy She explained that the loss of privacy was not limited to the rear yard, and noted the rear windows of residence Mrs Foster displayed a slide showing a slope that had failed and explained that she had removed agave plants from this hillside and the entire hillside had failed after a rain. She was concerned that this same type of thing could happen if the hedge were extensively trimmed and died. She noted that the upslope home had an addition to it several years ago, creating the exaggerated "L" shape. She explained that this addition now allows for greater viewing into her rear yard and windows. She was further concerned that there would be a recorded restriction relating to her property on the City ledge which she felt could possibly affect the value of her home. She discussed the two options she felt were available if she was forced to trim her hedge, which were either selling the home or putting an addition onto the back of the home She felt the possible addition would shield the backyard from the upslope property. She concluded by stating that she had bought her property and view as it was at the time. Similarly, her neighbors also bought and paid for the property and view as it was at that time, which included the existing hedge. Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mrs Foster if she had consulted with a geologist or soils expert as to whether the slope would become unstable if the hedge were to be completely removed, as had happened with the agave. Mrs. Foster responded that she had not consulted with a soils expert, and had already spent a great deal of money on this process Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mrs. Foster if she had consulted with a real estate agent to see if cutting the hedge would affect the value of her property. Mrs. Foster answered that she had spoken to a realtor who confirmed that privacy is very desirable in these homes and that cutting the hedge could affect the property value. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 3 Commissioner Duran Reed noted that on the other side of the property there was a clear plexiglass fence which allowed for a view of the coastline. She asked Mrs. Foster how she would feel if the neighbor replaced this fence with a hedge at a similar height Mrs. Foster answered that her view would be affected from her yard, however this was not her primary viewing area. Vice Chairman Long asked if a new down slope neighbor were to move in and planted a hedge for privacy where the current plexiglass fence was, that Mrs. Foster would not make a complaint to the City that the hedge was impairing her view Mrs. Foster did not want to answer this type of hypothetical question that may put some type of restrictions on her property. Vice Chairman Long asked if the purpose of the possible addition to Mrs. Foster's property would be to shield the backyard and preserve the privacy if the hedge were trimmed. Mrs. Foster answered that that was correct, as well as adding value to the property. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the hedge was part of the application taken before the View Restoration Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the hedge is below the 16 -foot threshold that triggers a View Restoration Commission review, and therefore is subject to the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the hedges were in place when the property was purchased. Mrs. Foster answered that there was a different fence behind the hedge, and the hedge was higher than it is today. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was a grandfather clause that would apply, since the hedge was in place before the Code was in place. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that if the hedge was existing as a significant view impairing hedge at the time that the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit regulations came into being, it most likely could be considered a grandfathered situation. Staff, however, could find no evidence as to how long the hedge had been in place. Vice Chairman Long asked if there was a fencing requirement for spas Director/Secretary Rojas answered that spas must be enclosed by a five-foot high fence Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 4 Vice Chairman Long asked if the current chain link fence were removed would the applicant's property then be out of compliance with swimming pool fencing requirements. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it would then be out of compliance, however he clarified that the chain link fence was not out of compliance and could remain where it was currently placed Chairman Cartwright asked Mrs. Foster if she was aware that a permit was required for the hedges at the time she purchased the property. Mrs. Foster answered that there was not a permit required when she purchased the property, as she purchased the property in 1979, and the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit requirements did not come into affect until approximately 1988 or 1989 Commissioner Duran Reed noted that some of Mrs. Foster's privacy concerns were from the inside of her home, and asked if she had considered some of the many different kinds of window coverings to help protect her privacy Mrs. Foster acknowledged that there were many types of window coverings that she could look into that would protect her privacy while allowing her to maintain her viewing area. Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any other homes in the neighborhood which had a similar type of solid hedge along the property line. Mrs Foster answered that there were several such hedges in the immediate neighborhood. Bill Foster 32451 Searaven Drive read a section of the Development Code which states that the purpose of the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit was to provide standards for the construction of fences, walls, and hedges He stated that his hedge was not constructed nor planted by him and was in place when he purchased his home in 1978. He questioned why this permit applied to his hedge. He then questioned the staff report section on Code Considerations and Analysis and the discussion on the City's Municipal Code and General Plan. He noted that staff had written that the hedge impacts the ocean view from 32459 Searaven Drive as such it does not comply with the General Plan's goal to prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residences He contended that the scenic view through his hedge has not existed for at least 20 years. He also noted that when the upslope neighbor bought the house only a year ago there was no view through the hedge and therefore they could not have reasonably expected a view through that hedge. He felt that the decision on the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit mandated that he create a new view for the upslope property at the expense of his privacy. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 5 Mr. Rammal 32459 Searaven Drive stated that the hedge blocks his shoreline view, Long Point view, and Portuguese Bend view. He explained that he bought the property the hedge was 8 to 9 feet tall and thought he could talk to his neighbors and ask them to lower the hedge He noted that the Fosters had lowered the hedge slightly, however would not lower it sufficiently to restore his view. He felt that his entire view from his living room was obstructed. He felt that neighbors should try to help each other and was disappointed that his neighbors would not agree to compromise with him Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Rammal where his family spent most of its time. Mr. Rammal answered that it was mostly in the family room and living room. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Rammal if he purchased the home with the expectation of having a full view. Mr Rammal answered that his real estate agent had told them this was a view lot and they had paid the price for a view lot He noted that his upslope neighbors had cut two trees to help his view and he had cut one tree to help his upslope neighbors' view. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Rammal if he had the expectation of a view through the hedge when he bought his home. Mr. Rammal answered that he did not have the expectation of a view through the hedge when he bought the home, but contacted the City after he bought the home regarding the rules and regulations of a view through the hedge. Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Rammal if he knew when the addition was added to his home Mr. Rammal thought it was in 1992, and he purchased the property in 1999. Commissioner Lyon asked staff to clarify what area of the hedge staff was recommending be trimmed. Assistant Planner Yu showed a slide which displayed an area of the hedge that staff was proposing be trimmed. Commissioner Lyon did not feel there would be much privacy for the down slope property once the hedge was trimmed. Assistant Planner Yu answered that the majority of the hedge would be trimmed, however staff had suggested leaving the hedge higher near the area of the spa Commissioner Tomblin felt that the code was written in "future tense" in that if someone were to want to build a fence or hedge they would have to comply with these codes. He therefore questioned how this code applied to the existing hedge. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 6 Director/Secretary Rojas noted that most written code provisions are in the "future tense" and if an improvement requires after -the -fact approval it is treated as it if were not there. Barry Hildebrand 3560 Vigilance Drive stated he had known the Foster family since they moved to the neighborhood 24 years ago. He discussed the many things the Fosters have done for the community. He explained that this hedge has existed in the same location since before the City was formed and did not think it was fair that the City require the Fosters to create a view where none had existed before He did not understand why the Fosters should apply for a permit for something they have had for more than 25 years, after the hedge had reached maturity several times over. He noted that the upslope neighbor is asking for a view that he did not have when he bought the home. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Duran Reed asked staff to address the issue of whether or not the code should be enforced retroactively. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that with the guidance of the City Attorney, staff does not look for unpermitted conditions, and only addresses these situations when they are brought to staffs attention. When there is a situation where the condition or structure was built before incorporation, there then is the issue of determining when the structure was built. He explained that if there is no clear evidence for staff to dismiss the situation, then it goes through the after -the -fact permit process. Commissioner Duran Reed asked what the date was for the General Plan. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it was 1975. Vice Chairman Long felt that the first issue was to determine whether or not the Ordinance applies to this hedge. He did not feel he had sufficient guidance from staff or sufficient facts to decide the question. He did not feel the Planning Commission needed to decide the question to reach the conclusions necessary He discussed Finding No 1, and felt the first consideration was what is the view area He felt that it must be determined as to whether the view was significantly impaired from the living room. He was not able to get inside the living room, nevertheless he felt he was able to walk around in the backyard, and he did not believe the view, taken as a whole, was significantly impaired. He agreed with Finding No. 2 in the staff report. Discussing Finding No. 3, Commissioner Long did not think the view is reasonably expected by neighboring residents. He did not think the impact on the view was significant, and therefore it was not reasonable to expect that one could avoid all insignificant impairments of view He did, however, feel there was an extensive violation of the privacy expectation of the Fosters by trimming the hedge. Without the hedge that was in place, he felt the Foster's outdoor privacy would be very poor With the hedge, he felt Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 7 the privacy was fairly good, and the good privacy was achieved by what he felt was an insignificant impairment of view Further, even if the impairment of view were significant, he felt the invasion of privacy necessary to restore the coastline view would be unreasonable, within the meaning of Finding No. 4 Therefore, he recommended rejecting the staff report and sustaining the appeal. Commissioner Tomblin felt the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit was mostly for new construction He felt this hedge had been in place for a very long time and did not fall under this type of permit. He stated that the major view for Mr. Rammal was out directly towards the ocean, which was not impacted. He felt that the view of the coastline was already lost when Mr Rammal purchased his home, and he did not feel there was anything in the Code to address that issue. Therefore, he agreed with Vice Chairman Long that the appeal be sustained. Commissioner Lyon understood the desire to want privacy, but did not feel it was an entitlement. On the other hand, he felt that the applicant had a right to build an addition to his home up to 16 -feet in height, in which case the view from the upslope property would be totally gone He did not think that cutting a hole in a hedge to provide a view to a neighbor was a reasonable course of action, and did not think it added much to the view that already exists He agreed that the appeal should be sustained. Commissioner Duran Reed did not feel Finding No. 2 applied. She discussed Finding No 3 and felt that both the Municipal Code and General Plan should be considered She stated that the General Plan prohibits encroachment on existing scenic views that are reasonably expected by neighboring residences. She did not have enough information to determine under the General Plan, if the view that is currently being obstructed was an existing scenic view, and if so, when did it exist. She felt that in this case, the question of retroactivity did not apply. However, she did not think she would hold this as a standard for future applications of any type. She discussed Finding No and whether the hedge significantly impairs the view. She felt the view was tied into Finding Number 3, an existing scenic view. She found it very difficult to say that because the view had been blocked for so many years, the foliage should now be removed. She was concerned with the possible loss of privacy to the Fosters, but did feel that any loss of privacy in the home could be reduced with window coverings She disagreed with Commissioner Lyon's view that building an addition up to 16 feet in height was possible without any consideration of the neighbor's view. She felt that the appeal should be sustained. Chairman Cartwright felt that the Fence, Wall, and Hedge process applies in this situation. He felt that the view, if the hedge were not in place, would be worthwhile and felt the view was significantly impaired. However, there is a concern with the privacy. He felt the indoor privacy could be handled very easily with window coverings, but was troubled with the privacy to the spa He felt the upslope neighbor did not have any reason to expect that the hedge would be removed He felt that the Fosters were entitled to build an addition to their property that was no higher than 16 feet without regard to view. He was concerned that denying the appeal and forcing the Fosters to Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 8 cut their hedge would put them on the path of adding a room that would completely destroy any possible view that might exist. Therefore, he would also sustain the appeal, and hope that the neighbors could work together to find a way to open up the view and maintain as much privacy as possible. Commissioner Lyon moved to sustain the appea% thereby overturning the Director's decision to approve the Fence, Wail and Hedge Permit, seconded by Vice Chairman Long. Approved, (5-0). Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the staff would have a Resolution prepared for the next meeting's Consent Calendar. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:40 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8.50 p.m at which time they reconvened PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance/Grading Permit (Case No. ZON20 3340 Peos Verdes Drive East Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff was requesting a continuance to allow the applicant additional time to meet with his neighbors and staff to try to resolve some outstanding issues. Commissioner Lyon moved to continue the pubft hearing to the JWy 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner TomMin. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Director/Secretary Rojas briefly discussed the View Restoration Commission's current workload and when the Planning Commission would likely begin hearing view restoration cases Commissioner Tomblin noted that on the July 9 agenda there was an item regarding Long Point He stated that he has already disclosed to the City Attorney and the City Clerk that he had done a small consulting job for Lowe Enterprises, the project applicant. Director/Secretary Rojas discussed a previous request from Vice Chairman Long regarding a future discussion on the findings required for a height variation. He stated that it was his understanding that Vice Chairman Long was not requesting that the item Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 9 be agendized to a date certain, but rather agendized at some future agenda, and asked for Commission direction. Vice Chairman Long agreed that the request was not for a date certain, but rather at a time that staff feels they will be suitably prepared and able to provide sufficient advance notice to all of the Commissioners. Commissioner Duran Reed asked that, in addition to the height variation guidelines, there be a discussion regarding the General Plan and how it is interpreted regarding height and view guidelines. Commissioner Long stated that he would like clarification of the question of whether, in making findings for a height variation permit, the Commission should consider the entirety of the view or only the portion of the view that exceeds 16 feet. He also wanted to consider how this issue inter -relates with view restoration permits and the trimming of foliage, as well as in which cases, if any, can construction which is less than 16 feet in height impact a view, as a view is considered in both the General Plan and different planning permits such as grading applications. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of June 11. 2002 Commissioner Duran Reed noted and clarified an omission on page 7 of the minutes as well as a clarification on page 9 She inserted a paragraph for clarification on page 19 and inserted sentences to a paragraph on page 23 to clarify her statement. She also added two paragraphs on page 23 of the minutes which she felt had been omitted Vice Chairman Long noted a typo and a clarification on page 3 of the minutes as well as typos on page 23 and 24. Chairman Cartwright noted a typo on page 6 of the minutes. Commissioner Duran Reed commented that on page 26 of the minutes under "Items to be placed on future agendas", she recalled the Commission suggesting additional cities to be looked at, and thought they should be included. Vice Chairman Long suggested continuing the minutes to the next meeting so that the revisions could be reviewed. The Commission agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 9.25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 10