Loading...
PC MINS 20150825 Approved September 8, 2015 .?/1/ CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:07 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Seeraty. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their August 18, 2015 meeting the City Council adopted the code amendment establishing an expedited review process for rooftop solar panels, as recommended by the Planning Commission the week before. The Director also reported that at the upcoming September 1St meeting the City Council will hear the appeal of the Planning Commission's determination on the Green Hills Cemetery annual review. Chairman Nelson reported on his attendance at the recent Traffic Safety Committee meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Sharon Yarber requested that she be allowed extra time to speak to the Commission, and with that, asked that this item be moved to the end of the agenda. The Commission unanimously agreed to move this item to the end of the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of July 28, 2015 Minutes Commissioner Cruikshank noted a typo on page 2 of the minutes. Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The minutes were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Site Plan Review and Height Variation (Case No. ZON2014-002830: 3302 Narino Drive Director Rojas noted this is a status report, as the application has been withdrawn by the applicant. However, because this is a noticed public hearing, the item had to remain on the agenda. He explained that during the review process staff noted some view issues that the proposed addition would cause. With that, the applicant decided not to pursue the second story addition and withdrew the application. Commissioner Gerstner moved to review and file the status report, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Unanimously approved. 3. Site Plan Review and Height Variation (Case No. ZON2015-00060): 30423 Via Victoria Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, beginning with a description of the proposed project. She stated staff received letters from neighbors with concerns over view impairment. She noted that staff found there was some view impairment to the home at 30448 Via Victoria, however staff felt that because of the small area of the impairment as well as the location of the impairment to the periphery of the entire view frame, that the view impairment was not significant. She noted that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings, with the exception of finding No. 5, as staff did not feel the view impairment had been minimized by the design of the second story addition. With that, staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice, the Height Variation application. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted that staff thought the proposed second floor addition should be reduced, and asked staff to explain. Associate Planner Seeraty explained that other potential options were discussed with the architect, including changing the roof pitch and moving the second story addition back from the street. However, after exploring several options it appeared that the best way to Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2015 Page 2 minimize some of the view impairment so that staff would be able to make finding No. 5 was to actually reduce the size of the proposed addition. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Jeff Browning (architect) explained that this type of addition, a second story over the garage area, is currently seen throughout the neighborhood. He felt the proposed addition gives the owners the space they need while maintaining the architectural integrity of the home. He noted that staff suggested changing the design of the roof from gable to hip to help minimize the effect on the neighbors' views, which he did, as well as add some articulation to the front façade of the home. He stated the Planning Department is in support of the proposed project, making eight of the required nine findings. He discussed finding No. 5, noting that it does say significant view impairment. He did not feel the neighbor's home was designed to capture the view, noting the view is defined as the Pacific Ocean and does not take into consideration the existing foliage. He noted the orientation of the window in question faces the homes across the street, and any view is at an angle. He stated that to his the proposed addition, one must stand directly in front of the front wall of the residence. He stated he did some calculations regarding the view from the neighbor's residence, and found that 85 percent of the view is blocked by their own cypress tree, and the actual view could be increased by 142 percent if they added another window that actually faces the view. He stated that 32 percent of the view is blocked by the proposed addition, and questioned if 32 percent is a significant impairment. He noted that staff had recommended pushing the proposed addition back and adding a balcony, but he did not like the look of this design. As an alternative, he suggested reducing the overall height of the addition by lowering the roof pitch to 3:12, and would be willing to go down to 2:12, which would then only impair 11 percent of the neighbor's view. He felt this would allow a view of the ocean and still allow the applicant the additional area they need. He stated he would like to design a project that gives his clients the space they need while reasonably addressing the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Browning how much the pitch change would lower the overall height of the addition. Mr. Browning explained that changing the pitch to 3:12 would lower the height by 1 1/2 feet, which is their preferred option. He stated that changing the pitch to 2:12 would add construction costs to the project, however if need be, the applicant is open to lowering the pitch to 2:12. Chairman Nelson noted that there are several homes in the immediate neighborhood that are almost identical in design to the proposed addition, and therefore felt the proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Browning pointed out, however, that the difference was this property is more of a pie shaped lot and the overall corner to corner dimension is narrower, noting there is an existing side approach garage rather than one goes straight off the front. That makes the appearance of bulk of this house much less than the surrounding properties. Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2015 Page 3 Steve Frank (applicant) stated he would like this addition so that he and his wife can have a multi-generational household, and their intention is to enhance the neighborhood and add value for everyone. He stated he has been respectful of his neighbors, and strongly agrees with the staff report and this addition will not significantly impact anyone's view. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser stated this is a family that has been in their home for over 30 years, and they are trying to expand their home for additional family members. He felt the addition is compatible with the neighborhood, and could make finding No. 5, as the homeowner is willing to make a concession to the neighbor by agreeing to a 3:12 roof pitch. Chairman Nelson stated he spent quite a bit of time in this neighborhood, and concurred with Commissioner Emenhiser's statement. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to recommend approval of the project, with the modification that the roof pitch be changed to 3:12, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Gerstner could not support a 3:12 pitch roof, but would support the motion if the roof pitch were lowered to 2:12. He felt that homes that have a very limited view should have that view preserved. Commissioner Leon stated that to him the improvement in the view was indistinguishable if the roof pitch is 3:12 or 2:12, and would be willing to go either way. Commissioner Cruikshank agreed that he would prefer to have the limited view of the neighbor preserved if at all possible. He commented that whether the applicant is a longtime resident or a new resident to the City that should not factor into a decision made by the Planning Commission. He agreed that this addition seems to be compatible with the neighborhood, and would also like to see the roof reduced to 2:12. Commissioner James stated he supports the motion, and agreed with Commissioner Cruikshank that it doesn't matter how long an applicant has lived in the City or in the neighborhood when making this type of decision. He was troubled by what he felt was an inconsistency with the Staff in regards to the rule for a viewing area and how a view should be taken. He saw very little viewing area from 30448 Via Victoria, and accepted the architect's statement that this would be a more attractive addition with a 3:12 roof pitch. He would therefore support the motion as stated. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated his preference was 2:12, but could support the 3:12 roof pitch. Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner Gerstner commented that staff's determinations appear inconsistent only because of how the Code is written. He wished the rule for viewing area was the most impacted area of the buildable portion of the lot, irrespective of what portion of the house happens to be over it. Commissioner Gerstner offered a friendly amendment to the motion to approve the addition with as modified with a 2:12 roof pitch, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. In regards to the friendly amendment, Commissioner Emenhiser stated he takes the architect on his word that a 2:12 pitch roof will add to the construction costs and may not be as compatible with the neighborhood as a 3:12 pitch. The motion to amend the original motion to approve the addition with the modification of a 2:12 pitch rather than a 3:12 pitch was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners James, Emenhiser, and Chairman Nelson dissenting. Director Rojas noted that if the current motion passes, a revised Planning Commission Resolution will be brought back to the Commission on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. Chairman Nelson noted the architect had a follow up question, and reopened the public hearing. Jeff Browning asked if it would be possible to take a vote on a 3:12 pitch, since some of the Commissioners seemed like they would approve the project with either the 3:12 or the 2:12 pitch. Director Rojas explained that there was already an affirmative vote to amend the motion on the table to change the pitch from 3:12 to 2:12. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. The motion to approve the Height Variation Permit and the Site Plan Review permit as modified to include a 2:12 pitch roof was approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 8, 2015 The pre-agenda was reviewed and unanimously approved. Commissioner Leon noted he will not be at the September 8th meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON-AGENDA ITEMS Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2015 Page 5 Sharon Yarber stated she wanted to discuss with the Commission the last Planning Commission meeting in regards to Wester Avenue. She clarified that she rarely travels on Western Avenue, and has no stake in the outcome, other than just being a resident. She stated she has spoken to several people who, including herself, were very offended by what happened at that meeting. She noted that the typical resident is allowed five minutes to speak, however at this meeting Councilman Buscaino, Mayor Knight, the City Manager, the staff from the City of Los Angeles were each given over 15 minutes to speak. She questioned why they were given this unlimited amount of time. She stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission have both previously rejected this project, and questioned who allowed it to be put back on the Planning Commission agenda for discussion. She questioned who is pressuring our city to keep this project moving forward. Chairman Nelson stated that the Commissioners have very little to say about the agenda, and it is a staff decision as to when items will fit onto the agenda. Ms. Yarber asked if it was then fair to say that it is staff that is trying to push the Western Avenue project forward. Director Rojas responded to Ms. Yarber that if she had any questions regarding the proposed Western Avenue Guidelines, that she send him an email and he will respond to her email. Ms. Yarber then questioned which agency was going to give the City this grant money for the actual construction, if the project gets that far. Chairman Nelson stated he could not answer that question, as he did not know the answer. Ms. Yarber stated that at the end of the day doesn't the City have to know, if they are applying for money, what the project is, what it's going to cost, and exactly what they are applying for. She felt that adding bikes to the street, and encouraging them to be on a busy thoroughfare is a recipe for danger and disaster and doesn't make a lot of sense. She then questioned what a complete street is. She asked if there currently is not a group that is being accommodated on Western Avenue as part of a complete street, and if adding a bike lane, why not accommodate horses? She understood the City is trying to get money, but she did not think the City should be seeking money for stuff the people do not want. She briefly discussed bicyclists, stating that they are extremely rude by riding in clusters, they don't stay in the bike lane, and there is not adequate education for bicyclists about safety. She stated that anything other than a car in a car lane is going to slow the traffic on Western Avenue. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he voted against the motion at the last meeting, and explained he voted against it because he felt he was siding with the residents. He also noted there have been three public hearings on this subject, and not once has a bike rider Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2015 Page 6 spoken to the Commission in support of this project. However, he felt the four Commissioners who voted in favor of the project did so for very good reasons. Commissioner Leon stated he appreciated the question as to who is pushing this project, and would like the answer to that as well. Commissioner Cruikshank discussed his concerns with the plan and his reasons for voting in favor of the modified Option B. Chairman Nelson also discussed his reasoning for voting in favor of Option B and the need to move this from the Planning Commission venue to the City Council. He explained it is the Chairman's prerogative to determine how long the speakers have, and since this is a collaborative effort between the two cities, it was his decision to allow the Councilman and the other elected officials longer speaking times. He thanked Ms. Yarber for her comments. Director Rojas commented that it was he and the City Manager who collectively decided to bring this issue back to the Planning Commission, as it had gone to the Traffic Safety Committee and some City of LA Neighborhood Groups had acted on the issue. He and the City Manager felt that the Planning Commission should hear the new information and input before moving this issue to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2015 Page 7