Loading...
PC MINS 20150210 Approved March 10, 2015 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:01 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGANCE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, James, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: Commissioners Gerstner and Tomblin were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Senior Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear agenda item No. 2 before agenda item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their February 3, 2015 meeting the City Council overturned the Planning Commission's denial of a 2-story home on Villa Rosa Drive and approved a modified project on a 4-0 vote. Director Rojas invited the Commission to attend the 16th annual General Assembly which will be held on February 27th. He reported that the Planning Commission's sub- committee on the Western Avenue Corridor Plan will meet on February 11, 2015, and that the Coastal Commission will hear the City's proposed LCP amendment to allow flag poles up to 70 feet in height in the Coastal Zone on February 12th. Finally, he reported that the Community Development Department received 65 new planning applications and took action on 58 of those applications. Commissioner Emenhiser thanked the City for the improvements to the City Council chamber. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Amendment Zone Chane Environmental Assessment Parcel Ma Variance ease Nos. ZON2014-0029 and SUB 2014-0004), 5656 Crest Road Senior Planner Kim explained the request is to change a land use and zoning designation to a higher density, and to split a vacant lot at the corner of Whitley Collins and Crest Road. She explained that initially staff had concerns related to compatibility with the immediate neighborhood, however the abutting residential neighborhood is a City created tract which excluded the subject southeast lot and the nursery school on the southwest lot. In addition, there is a vehicular gate which separates this tract from these two excluded lots. With this in mind, staff compared the subject lot with the three remaining lots at the same intersection. She stated that staff believes the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area, as detailed in the staff report. She stated that staff also believes there is an exceptional circumstance which applies to this property which does not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district to warrant the proposed substandard lot widths. She explained the property has an auto overlay district allowing for an auto use on the site, and although this type of use can be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, staff does not believe that would be the most compatible use for the area. She stated that staff believes the most compatible use for this particular lot would be residential. She also stated that, despite the reduced lot widths, staff is in support of the proposal since allowing this type of use will make the lot no longer viable for an auto service station use on the site, as the lot sizes would be too small. She stated that staff is able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval. She noted that the Planning Commission's decision is advisory only, as the final decision will be made by the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he met with the applicant and advised the applicant to pay great attention to the feedback from the adjacent neighborhood and to stick very close to staff's recommendations. He noted the current lot is approximately 20,000 square feet, and asked how that compares to the sizes of the lots on the south side of Crest Road. Senior Planner Kim responded that the lots on the south side of Crest Road vary from approximately 12,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet. She also explained the tract was created under a Residential Plan District, therefore the lots do not necessarily have to meet the minimum lot size required by the City. Vice Chairman Nelson also disclosed that he met with the applicant and concurred with Commissioner Emenhiser's advice. Commissioner James noted that in the staff report it is stated that in order to approve a General Plan amendment the City must make certain findings, one of which is that the Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2015 Page 2 proposal is in the public's interest. He asked staff why this proposal is in the public's interest. Senior Planner Kim answered that because the HOA representing the property owners on the south side of Crest Road are in support of the proposed project staff feels that in itself supports the project being in the public interest. She also noted that by moving forward with this proposal it will reduce or eliminate the possibility of having this lot developed as an auto service station. Director Rojas added that staff felt that the overall size and scale of the houses built on these lots can be limited so that the views over the lots are maintained. Commissioner James agreed that this is a reasonable proposal, however the question before the Commission is whether the City should change the zoning of the lot, and there are certain rules to do so. He read the requirements to approve a Variance, and asked staff what the substantial property right of the applicant to preserve and enjoy was that required the Variance to be approved. Senior Planner Kim stated that either way the property owner has the right to develop the lot, whether at the current zoning designation of one to two, or the higher density of two to four. She stated that staff felt that allowing this would be compatible and the density didn't make a difference from staff's standpoint. Director Rojas added that staff did not see a problem with developing substandard lots since the residents to the south are part of the Residential Planned Development where the lots do not meet the zoning requirements and are also substandard lots according to the zoning code. Commissioner Cruikshank asked how the minimum widths for lots are determined in different zones and the reasoning for the minimum width. Director Rojas answered that the Code identifies what would be an ample size width and depth of a lot to accommodate a home of a size that would meet the lot coverage and other standards that would apply to that zoning district. Chairman Leon asked if these lots are being invited to join the HOA of the residents to the south, and if the gate to the development is being moved to allow these homes to be part of the development. Senior Planner Kim answered that there is no such plan for either that she is aware of. Chairman Leon asked staff what the maximum home size would be for these lots, Senior Planner Kim explained that the applicant submitted a plan showing an idea in concept of what could be allowed on the lots, which showed a 3,000 square foot home. Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2015 Page 3 Director Rojas stated that the maximum size of the home will depend on allowable lot coverage, and since there are facets of the development such as walkways, driveways, and hardscape that count towards lot coverage it is difficult to give a maximum size home. In reviewing the staff report, Commissioner Cruikshank questioned why the City would allow expansive soil to be brought to the site when removing the old tanks. He asked if the City monitors what type of soils is brought in when the tanks are removed. Senior Planner Kim explained that at that time the property owner obtained approval from LA County. However, she noted that the City Geologist looked at the lots from a potential development standpoint and determined he soil that currently exists would not be suitable for the type of development that is being proposed. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Tristan Harris (representing the applicant) explained that his company originally purchased the property with the intent of developing a commercial use, however after meeting with the surrounding residents and community leaders they realized that would not be a viable option. He explained that he worked with the Island View HOA to develop a plan for this property that would cause the least amount of impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Harris why they looked at developing two houses as opposed to one house on this lot. Mr. Harris explained that two houses is really the only feasible option at this point since the houses are being limited to a single story. He also noted that this property is outside of Island View gates and not part of that community. Louie Tomaro (architect) reiterated that this lot sits lower than the lots behind it, and there is a wall and a gate separating this lot from Island View. He felt this lot relates more to the properties on the north side of the street. He explained that they felt safe ingress and egress to the lot was important, which is why they are proposing the entrance off of Whitley Collins Drive rather than Crest Road. He noted that by doing so the houses were turned, thus creating a lot of a substandard width. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Tomaro if he felt a single home on a 20,000 square foot lot would be viable. Mr. Tomaro explained that given a bigger lot one would tend to build a larger house, and given this is a busy street and the lot sits rather low, it would be a difficult selling point. He also felt that a 5,000 square foot house was not consistent with the properties to the north and it's not a part of the planned development to the south. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 4 Cion Douthwri ht stated he is president of the Island View HOA, as well as the property owner immediately to the east of the proposed development, and therefore the property most impacted by the proposed development. He stated that nobody in the neighborhood is interested in having an auto repair shop on this property or any other commercial development. He felt that something should be built on this lot, and the Island View HOA, as well as himself as a property owner, are in favor of two single story homes being built. He stated that he appreciated how closely the applicant has worked with their HOA in their proposal to develop the property. Minas Yerelian stated that the applicant had stated they bought the property as a commercial property then decided the commercial use wasn't viable. He stated that one buys a commercial property they are thinking a commercial business, therefore he felt the applicant's intention from the very beginning was to buy the property and rezone it. He felt that the least the developer could do was to be honest. He asked the Commission to reject this proposal just on the fact that the intentions were misrepresented. Chairman Leon stated that he never heard the applicant misrepresent this project and felt anyone has the right to buy a lot and risk requesting a zone change. Mr. Yerelian responded that before someone buys a commercial property they should do a feasibility study and know whether or not a business will be viable. He stated that his point is that the applicant's intention from the very beginning was to change the zoning and they should be honest about that. Tristan Harris (in rebuttal) explained that all of the remediation has been done on the lot and that the lot only has to be recompacted before development. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Emenhiser stated these type of in-fill lots are always problematic, and he commended the applicant and the HOA for working together. He felt that if the applicant comes back with two single story homes along the lines of what has been presented at this meeting, he did not think he would have an issue. Commissioner James agreed with the applicant and staff in that this project makes good sense, however he felt the question of whether or not to change the zoning is a much more serious issue. He did not think it should be the case that anyone who feels they can improve their own economic situation can simply ask for a change of zoning. He noted there is a requirement that the zone change be in the public interest, and he did not think this development is in the public interest, as he did not think it was in the public's interest to have more density and more congestion with the approval of smaller lots in this location. He did not feel there was any factual information given to the Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2015 Page 5 Commission to support a finding that they are supposed to make that it is in the public's interest. In addition, he was troubled by the requirement of a substantial property right of the applicant in order to approve a Variance. He stated he did not see this substantial property right, and there was nothing presented in the staff report to change his opinion. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner James, but noted that allowing the zone change and building the homes will keep someone from coming in and building an auto repair or a 7-Eleven. He felt that it was in the public interest to not allow that to happen. Commissioner Cruikshank was concerned about allowing the creation of substandard lots, which will result in the building of narrow houses. Yet, he agreed with the architect in that it would be difficult to sell one large house built on the lot. Chairman Leon asked staff if the applicant could split the lot with the current zoning. Director Rojas answered that the lot could not be split under the current zoning. Chairman Leon stated his concern is these two homes would be out of character with the surrounding homes and it would almost be like putting two townhomes on this corner. Vice Chairman Nelson agreed with Commissioner James' comments. He noted that he made the motion to approve staff's recommendation knowing that down the road there will be recommendations to change and modify the final design. However, the Commission's purpose at this meeting is to make a recommendation to the City Council for their review and, most likely, modifications. He stated the Commission represents 40,000 people and if a survey were taken he felt that the 40,000 people would much prefer what has been proposed as opposed to many of the alternatives. The motion to approve staff's recommendation, thereby approving PC Resolution 2015-04 was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Appeal of Fence/Wall Permit decisions Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-004151; 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that at the last hearing in December the Commission had voted to continue the public hearing to allow both parties to get together with the view mediator to try to resolve their differences. She noted that both the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney agreed that the City Council would have to authorize the use of the view mediator, as the current contract is limited to view purposes only, and to decide if this would be an appropriate use of city funds. She explained that the item was scheduled to be heard by the City Council, Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 6 however both the applicant and appellant submitted letters stating mediation at this point would not be beneficial. She stated that since mediation only works when both parties are willing to participate, the City Council, at staff's recommendation, took no action. Therefore, the item is once again before the Planning Commission for consideration. She explained that included in the applicant's letter to the City Council was an alternative to Section C of the wall, which was to remove the originally proposed wood wall/clear acrylic material portion and replace it with chain link. She stated staff was in support of the proposed change, as it would provide additional visibility through the chain link. She stated staff's recommendation remains the same, to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision with the applicant's proposed modification to Section C of the wall. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff what the proposed height limit was for Section C and Section D of the wall. Senior Planner Kim answered the height limit for Section C is 8 feet as measured from the lowest point on the applicant's side, and 6 Y2 feet above the grade level as measured from the appellant's side. She stated that Section D would be entirely chain link. Director Rojas reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission's previous decision on Sections C and D was appealed to the City Council. It has been remanded back for the Commission to hear the entire issue, and will go back to the City Council for the appeal. Therefore, the Commission's decision is not final, as it item is still to be heard by the City Council. Cyrus Shahbazian (applicant) commented on the staff report, noting that staff continues to treat the wall as four separate portions. He noted the staff report omits the recent approvals the Hessers have received for structures in their rear yard, and therefore he felt the offer of a chain link fence is irrelevant as the only view available will be of these new structures. He stated that this all comes down to the preservation of a view, and the code protects against the unnecessary impairment of views. In addition, the General Plan discusses views that are reasonably expected. He noted that the Shahbazians have had this view for twenty three years, and is therefore reasonably expected. He showed photos of the view before the wall, and the view that is available today. Lastly, he noted the section of the Code that discusses the refund of the appeal fee, and noted he hasn't heard anything from staff about that. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned the view from the kitchen window, and asked if he is standing at the window looking straight out does he see the neighboring house or does he see the slope across the street, as depicted in the photo. Mr. Shahbazian explained that when standing at the kitchen sink and looking straight out you will see the neighboring house, but you will still see the street and slope in your peripheral view. However, when you turn your head you will see the street and the slope across the street. Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2015 Page 7 Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Shahbazian what he is asking for, and what the purpose of the presentation was. Mr. Shahbazian asked that the wall be returned to the prior construction, and that a four foot fence the entire length of the property line be approved. Vicky Shahbazian stated that for twenty five years she could stand at her kitchen sink and look out and see the slope across the street, and it was much more visible before the six foot fence was constructed. She did not understand how the City could give Mr. Hesser permits to build structures in his rear yard that obstruct her view. She also stated that she has always been willing to participate in mediation with the neighbor. She noted that Mr. Hesser's application was submitted March 19th and a zoning change came into effect in May, and she felt that staff should have processed the application before the new zone change was in effect. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that Mrs., Shahbazian stated she has always been willing to participate in mediation, however staff noted that the Shahbazians rejected mediation. He asked staff to clarify. Director Rojas explained that staff had asked both parties to write letters to the City Council clarifying their positions on city mediation. Mr. Hesser wrote a letter stating he did not believe mediation would be of any benefit, and staff received an email from Cyrus Shahbazian which seemed to indicate that, given Mr. Hesser's position that mediation would not be beneficial, it would therefore be superfluous to try to engage in mediation. He noted that at the meeting he was trying to convey to the City Council both parties' position, however he also noted that both parties were at the hearing and could have provided any clarity to their positions. Hossein Shahbazian stated no training is needed to be able to tell if something is very beautiful or very ugly, and anybody passing by that can see this fence will feel very bad and very sad. He felt that for a city official to issue an approval for something like this is ridiculous. He stated all of the information provided is false and fraud, and any permit issued under these circumstances must be revoked. He felt everything his neighbor has done has been done for harassment and questioned why every mistake made by staff benefited the Hessers. Darrel Hesser stated that this is not a case of view restoration or view preservation, but rather a case of a neighbor trying to extend their already expansive view by force. He stated that the view was never available to the Shahbazians until they illegally removed the hedge from his property. He stated that, contrary to the Shahbazians statements, he has made several attempts to work with the neighbors to reach a compromise. He stated that, given he has previously requested mediation in writing which was rejected, he did not feel that mediation at this point is a fruitless effort. He stated that through the process he has been very careful to comply with all city requests, and when he's made mistakes he has made the necessary corrections. He stated he has followed the Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 8 provisions set forth in the City code, and in this case a series of findings are required in order to recommend approval. He stated that these findings have been met. He requested the Commission uphold the Director's decision and approve the fence application. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Hesser if he rejected the last offer of mediation. Mr. Hesser answered that he did reject the idea of meeting with the mediator. He explained that at this point he wants no less than what is allowed by the city's code. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Hesser if the fence is approved as recommended by staff, would he still require the trellis structure. Mr. Hesser answered that he would still require the trellis structure. Brenda Hesser reiterated that when they bought the home, and up until the Shahbazians removed the hedge, there was a chain link fence with a hedge which provided a great amount of privacy. She felt the Shahbazians have made several false statement over the last three meetings, and asked the Commission to disregard their attempt to derail the one reason they are before the Commission. She felt there was no valid justification not to allow a chain link fence that creates no view impairment. She asked the Commission go uphold the Director's decision. Chairman Leon felt that it appeared the grade in the back yard has been increased and that the bottom of the wall is higher than the level of the house. Mrs. Hesser stated that there has been no change, and the height of the small planter wall has not changed. Vice Chairman Nelson stated his issue was why the Hessers have put up a trellis and why they have asked for a 12-foot tall shed. He felt these two improvements make the chain link fence null and void. Mrs. Hesser answered that the trellis is now a gazebo that protects the koi pond in the back yard. She noted the Shahbazians appealed the four foot tall fence long before the trellis or gazebo was even in place. Cyrus Shahbazian (in rebuttal) stated the hedge in question was entirely on the Shahbazian property. In regards to the findings, he felt the findings were made based on what has been represented as accurate. He felt that the findings were based on inaccurate information. He stated that the former white lattice fence was taken from his family by the Planning Department issuing this Fence Permit to the Hessers. He stated that the portion of the fence was taken unjustly because they had a legitimate claim to ownership, as they had occupied the portion of the property for 24 years. Finally, he stated that the Director's comments that the Shahbazians rejected mediation was incorrect. Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2015 Page 9 Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to review the proposed resolution. Director Rojas first clarified that the Commission is looking at the entire fence, however to better understand it, it has been divided into sections for explanation only. Senior Planner Kim explained that portions A and B are currently a solid wood fence, and staff is in support in that remaining in its current location, at its current height, and with its current material. Section C was originally approved that the lower portion be constructed of a wood wall material and the upper portion be of a framed acrylic. Now, because of the applicant's proposal, staff is in support of the entirety of Section C being of a chain link material. She stated that Section D is proposed to remain a chain link material. Commissioner Emenhiser asked who is required to build the fence, and what kind of time frame is allowed. Senior Planner Kim answered that the Hessers will be building the fence, and because there is no building permit required, there is no time restriction involved. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner James. Commissioner James clarified with staff that the gazebo and other structures on the Hesser property are not currently before the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Kim stated that was correct, that the Commission is only making a decision on the entirety of the wall and fence. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff what would stop the Hessers from planting another hedge on this slope. Director Rojas explained that there is a section of the code that says any hedge cannot significantly impair a view. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if that section of the code would apply if ivy were to grow up the chain link fence. Director Rojas stated that ivy growing in a chain link fence would not be considered a hedge, and suggested a condition be added that the chain link remain open and not have any type of landscaping or other type of obstructions in or on it. Commissioner Emenhiser accepted that as an amendment to his motion, seconded by Commissioner James. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 10 Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this is a neighbor to neighbor dispute that neither the City nor the Planning Commission will be able to resolve, and neither neighbor will be happy until one of them sells and moves away. He felt that both neighbors are manipulating the system, and did not appreciate being manipulated in such a way. Vice Chairman Nelson stated he will support the motion, but found himself in shock and awe that the City renders the Planning Commission and the City Council impotent when it comes to a wood fence and a 12 foot tall shed and any view impact they may have. He did not think this was the purpose of some of the view ordinances in place, and was shocked that the Commission cannot consider these structures. Commissioner James stated that both parties have spent quite a bit of time defending their efforts to compromise along the way and accused the other side of not being as cooperative as they might have been. He stated that all of that is irrelevant to him, as there is no requirement that the parties mediate or cooperate, and the Commission is being asked to make a decision on a Fence application. He suggested that when going before the City Council in appeal, that neither side even mention the personal disputes as it is not part of the issue. He stated he disagreed with Mr. Shahbazian that there is a view from the kitchen window. He, too, was concerned with the structures built in the Hesser's yard, but accepted staff's position that it is not before the Commission, and it will not be part of his decision. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he is in favor of the motion, and regretted that the two parties were not able to reach a compromise. He was also troubled by the trellis, but recognized it was not before the Commission. Chairman Leon stated this neighborhood is one where there have been a number of new construction or major remodel applications, and the Commission has been very careful with respect to the rear setbacks that have been established between houses so as not to obstruct neighbors' views. He felt that if the Commission doesn't want trellises and gazebos and sheds built in the rear yards, additional conditions will have to be added to the approvals. The motion to approve staff's recommendation as amended, thereby upholding the Director's decision and adopting PC Resolution 2015-05 was approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 24 2015 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2015 Page 11