Loading...
PC MINS 20030225CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2003 CALL TO ORDER ApRroved March 11 03 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7 00 p m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present Commissioners Cartwright, Lyon, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Mueller, Chairman Long Commissioner Cote arrived at 7:05 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Duran Reed was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Blumenthal, Assistant Planner Yu, Assistant Planner Luckert, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Cartwright moved to amend the agenda to hear items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he had distributed one item of correspondence relating to Agenda Item No. 4. He also reported that the City Council had heard the appeal of the CPH application and had overturned the Planning Commission decision, thereby approving the request Vice Chairman Mueller asked for clarification as to when the Planning Commission Chairman or Vice Chair should attend City Council meetings when an appeal to a Planning Commission appeal is to be heard After a brief discussion the Planning Commission determined that if the City Council requests a member of the Planning Commission attend a meeting where an appeal is to be heard, that the attendance would alternate between the Chairman and the Vice Chairman COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) MOS PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2002-00492): 30148 Via Borica Commissioner Tomblin reported that he had gone to the applicant's residence to make a site visit and was informed by the applicant that he should have made an appointment and he was not allowed inside the residence The applicant had told him he could look in the backyard, but he chose not to. Therefore, he did not see any of the back area and would possibly abstain from the vote if he felt he did not have enough information to make a decision. Chairman Long noted that he too had been told by the applicant that he should have made an appointment, however he was allowed in the back to look at the area of the proposed addition. He asked the staff to remind applicants that the Commissioners do not get their packets until late Thursday, and since many of them work it is not usually possible to call ahead to make appointments 11 Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project She explained that staff had determined the proposed project would not impact any views from surrounding residences, will have no privacy impacts to the neighbors, and will be compatible with the neighborhood. As such, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, the requested height variation Chairman Long opened the public hearing. Avtar Havre 30148 Via Borica (applicant) stated that he had a few observations regarding the process. He stated that his project is simply an extension of the existing bathroom using the roofline of the second story He objected to the fact that he had to pay another party to prepare a radius map as well as the fee required to file for a height variation application. He objected to having to get the signatures from his neighbors for the height variation and did feel he should have had to apply for a height variation for such a small project. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Hayre if he had at any time asked staff why a height variation application was required for his project. Mr. Hayre responded that he had questioned staff and staff had stated that anything on a second story would require a height variation. He did not think a height variation should be required for his project as it was underneath the existing roofline. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Hayre if he had received a copy of the staff report and if, after reading the report, he understood why a height variation was required Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 Page 2 Mr Hayre answered that he had read the staff report but still did not think he should have had to apply for a height variation Chairman Long asked Mr Hayre if he had any concerns regarding any portion of the staff report. Mr Hayre did not have any objections to the staff report, only the process Chairman Long closed the public hearing. Chairman Long asked staff to explain why this particular application required a height variation permit. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Development Code requires any new house or addition to an existing house which exceeds 16 feet in height apply for and receive approval of a height variation application, and noted that there is no square footage exception Commissioner Cote stated that she had the opportunity to visit the property and view the backyard, and saw no view impairment or privacy issues She noted that the addition was in the back and designed in such a way as to not create any issue of mass or neighborhood compatibility She therefore did not have any problems in approving the proposed height variation Chairman Long agreed with Commissioner Cote's comments and added that while he understood the applicant's frustrations with the process, the process was in place for a reason and the Planning Commission and staff were required to make sure that the proposed addition meets all of the requirements of the Development Code Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P C. Resolution No. 2003-05 thereby approving Height Variation Case No. ZON2002-00492. as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Mueller. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining. 3 Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review Permit (Case No. ZON2002- 00437. 30339 Rhone Drive Commissioner Tomblin noted that in the process of planning his own remodel he has interviewed the applicant's architect, but felt that there was no conflict with this application Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He described the proposed project, and noted that staff could make all of the necessary findings for the Height Variation He stated that staff has received one comment letter from property owners on Lautrec Place who expressed concern regarding intrusion of privacy caused by the Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 Page 3 proposed addition. He explained that staff conducted a privacy analysis from both properties and found that only the windows on the property on Lautrec were visible from the proposed addition and therefore staff did not feel there was any unreasonable infringement of privacy. He stated that staff also found that all 9 criteria for the grading application could be met and was therefore recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed project subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff about the grading and the sewer line for the proposed cabana, the precautions proposed, and if proper permission has been requested or granted regarding the easement. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that condition no 20 requires that the applicant obtain permission from the county before they do any improvements over the easement area, including all grading, garden walls, and foundations. He stated that all necessary paperwork, forms, etc. for building on the easement would be handled during the Building and Safety plan check process and inspection process Director/Secretary Rojas added that because permission must be granted by the County Sanitation Department to perform work within the sewer easement, staff relies on the County Sanitation Department to verify the depth of the sewer line and to alert the owner and staff of all the proper precautions that must be taken during construction. Commissioner Cote asked staff to clarify the privacy findings, as it was her understanding that the privacy findings only applied to the addition and not the cabana area Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the proposed cabana is not subject to the height variation and therefore the privacy findings are not applicable to the cabana. Chairman Long opened the public hearing. Bernard Wong 30339 Rhone Drive (applicant) addressed the privacy issue and assured the Planning Commission that it was not his intent to peer into his neighbors property and noted that the less he sees of his neighbors property the better for both of them. He distributed photographs taken from the cabana area and noted that all that could be seen was the roof structure of the neighbor's home. He stated that if he walks down to the property line and looked over the wall he could see portions of the windows and swimming pool of the neighbor's house. Commissioner Cote noted that the existing chain link fence and shrubbery adds to the privacy of both homes and asked Mr. Wong if he planned on keeping the fence at its current location Mr. Wong stated that he was not sure whether the fence was on his property or not, however the shrubbery is not on his property and therefore nothing that he can control Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 Page 4 Rosa Velazquez 1945 S. Elena Ave Redondo Beach stated that she is the architect for the project and stated that there is very little area in the backyard that is accessible because of the slope She did not think there was a privacy issue from the cabana area .but would be willing to work with the neighbor and their concerns She stated that she had read the staff report and agreed with the conditions of approval, and that she would be submitting all necessary applications to the county sanitation department for work on the easement. Chairman Long closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cartwright stated that he supported the staff recommendations and believed that the design of the home is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood, and that he could also make all of the other necessary findings In regards to the privacy issue, he walked around the applicant's property and also went down to the neighbor's property. He stated that when looking up at the applicant's property he could see the second story balcony. Therefore, the privacy issue may be a concern, however he did not think the proposed project would cause more of a privacy issue, as the balcony is existing now and it would be there after the project was complete. He felt that when there is severe down sloping properties it is not very reasonable to expect 100 percent privacy. Commissioner Tomblin supported Commissioner Cartwright's comments and supported the findings and recommendations made by staff. Commissioner Lyon stated that he too supported the staff recommendations and felt that all of the necessary findings could be made Commissioner Cote stated that she had visited the down slope neighbor's property and noted that there is an existing privacy issue and did not feel the proposed project would add to that issue. She recommended that both the applicant and the neighbor use the foliage between the two homes to help with the privacy issues. She stated that she could support the project as presented by staff. Vice Chairman Mueller stated that his concerns were more towards the size of the home, however given the information presented in the staff report he was satisfied that the front entrance would be designed and built in such a way as to soften the facade of the house from the street. He felt that the applicant and architect did a good job in trying to minimize any possible view impairment to neighbors He agreed with the comments of the other commissioners regarding the privacy issues, and would be able to support the project Chairman Long also agreed with the other Commissioners comments regarding the privacy issues and noted that there was a considerable amount of room that foliage can grow up without impairing the view of Catalina and still affording some privacy. He therefore felt he could support the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Lyon moved to accept the staff recommendations to approve the project with conditions, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2003-06, seconded by Commissioner Cote. Approved, (6-0). 4. Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review Permit (Case No. Z4N2002- 00066: 3867 Crest Road Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report. He explained the scope of the project and noted that staff had determined that all findings could be made for the height variation and the grading permit, and was therefore recommending approval of the project Commissioner Cote asked staff to provide clarification on the grading and the review done by the City Geologist. Assistant Planner Luckert explained that the grading proposed was primarily for the footings and placement of the structure, and there would be no grading outside of the footprint of the building, except for the excavation of the swimming pool He explained that the geology report calls for 25 caissons into bedrock, which has been approved by the City Geologist. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was a condition requiring curbs and gutters for proper drainage on the street. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that in speaking with the Director of Public Works, his concern was that the lot drain to the street and that he review a drainage plan, which was made a condition of approval of the project. He stated that curbs and gutters were not being required for this project but could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Director. Commissioner Tomblin questioned whether the property was on a private or public street Assistant Planner Luckert stated that the proposed project was on a private street, noting that the street was public up to the lot and private from the lot into Rolling Hills. Chairman Long opened the public hearing. Commissioner Cote asked the applicant to clarify the request for an easement for the utilities and allowing the entry to access through the easement on the property and if it has been approved by Edison. Mr Behshid (applicant) stated that he has already talked to Southern California Edison and they have approved their request for the utilities and easements. He stated that he had looked into under grounding the utilities, however it was extremely expensive. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 Page 6 Chairman Long asked Mr Behshid where his property line was in regards to the private street. Mr. Behshid answered that his property line went to the middle of the street Chairman Long asked who owned the street on the other side of his property line Mr. Behshid did not know for certain, but noted that the property across the street was the radar towers. Chairman Long closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lyon moved to accept the staff recommendations to approve Case No. ZON2002-00066, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2003-07, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS At the suggestion of Commission Lyon, Chairman Long asked the Commissioners if they would like to have the minutes moved to the end of the Agenda at every meeting. The Commission agreed and directed staff to place the minutes at the end of every future agenda Commissioner Cote noted that she may not be able to make the next Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 11, 2003 Commissioner Cote noted a clarification on page 3 of the minutes and a typo on page 4 of the minutes Chairman Long noted two clarifications on page 17 of the minutes ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8.30 p m Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 Page 7