Loading...
PC MINS 20160726 Approved 8/9/1 • ! . CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Cruikshank at 7:03 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Emenhiser led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, and Vice Chairman Cruikshank. Absent: Commissioner Bradley and Chairman Tomblin were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Associate Planner Seeraty, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Assistant City Attorney Burrows noted that the closed session agenda item listed on the agenda was inadvertently left on the agenda, and she recommended that during the pre- agenda section of the meeting this closed session item be removed. She stated staff will be recommending the Planning Commission adjourn this meeting to a closed session on August 8th. She therefore recommended the Planning Commission approve this agenda with the closed session removed. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the agenda, with the closed session item removed, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at their July 19th meeting the City Council established fees for Special Event Permits issued by the City's Public Works Department, which included no fees for Homeowner's Associations and 501(C) tax exempt groups. He also noted that late correspondence had been distributed for agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Noel Weiss distributed to the Commission a copy of the request for interpretation review that was recently filed with the City, noting that the question is whether rooftop burials/internments are allowed. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of July 12, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Mitigated Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817, and Grading Permit (Case No. SUB2015-00001, ZON2015- 00187, ZON2016-00314): 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, giving an overview of the proposed lot split and project. She explained that staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and no comments have been received in response to the document from any of the appropriate agencies. She stated that staff believes both proposed homes meet all of the requirements in terms of height, lot coverage, grading findings, and neighborhood compatibility, and is recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed lot split and the two new proposed residences. Commissioner James commented that overall the applicant has done a very good job in submitting a complete application that meets the requirements of the code. However, overall he had some philosophical concerns about what is happening, and was not sure they fit easily into a specific challenge of the code. He noted that the area in question on Palos Verdes Drive East is on a convex portion, explaining that as one comes out the proposed driveway it is very difficult to see traffic in either direction. He asked if staff received any input from Public Works or the Traffic and Safety Committee in regards to traffic safety. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that staff submitted a copy of the plans to a Public Works engineer, who reviewed the plan and responded that there were no concerns with respect to the driveway other than the vegetation along the driveway must be maintained for visibility. Director Mihranian added that whenever a Tract Map or Parcel Map is processed, the application is reviewed by the Public Works Department for these types of issues. Commissioner James referred back to previous Commission and staff discussions regarding the articulation rule for upslope lots. He noted the back house has created a porch in front of the actual structure, and therefore the required 45 degree angle is achieved. He also felt the real purpose of the rule is defeated because once you get past Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2016 Page 2 the porch to the house, the actual house appears to go straight up. He asked if this was something staff looked at or had any concerns over. Director Mihranian responded that this is a concern with staff, explaining when this Ordinance was adopted and the intent of having the setback, it looked at a typical upslope resident. He felt that projects that staff is now seeing are different than those intended when the Ordinance was voted in by the community. He explained that staff is looking into what it would take to further clarify the intent, and to consider a code amendment to address that issue. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that there appears to be some confusion with the APN numbers and the addresses. He stated the addresses listed in the staff report are not listed with the LA County Assessor. Associate Planner Seeraty explained that the applicant applied with the City Engineer to get a new address for the vacant parcel. The address has been assigned and the Assessor's office is being notified. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted the table in the staff report describing both of the proposed lots, and pointed out that both upslope and downslope are shown on the table. He questioned if that was because the lots act as both since there is a road going between the two or should they both be just upslope lots. Associate Planner Seeraty clarified that the upslope and downslope are describing the upslope and downslope sides of the house and the measurement of the house from the upslope side and the downslope side. Vice Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Doug Maupin (property owner) stated the Fire Department has dictated a lot of what can and cannot be done on these lots. He showed a photo of his house down the street and explained this is similar to what he has planned for the property. He stated his goal is to enhance the neighborhood and make a good project that everyone can be proud of. He also showed a rendering of the two houses so the Commission could get an idea of how they will look when built. He also stated he sent a copy of the plans and renderings to the neighbors. He also noted that one of the neighbors had some privacy concerns, but he has worked with the neighbor to mitigate those concerns. Tim Racisz (architect) stated he was available to answer any questions regarding the design of the project. Commissioner Nelson referred to the driveway exit onto Palos Verdes Drive East, and asked if that was the best possible placement for safety. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2016 Page 3 Mr. Racisz explained one of the biggest challenges with this project was designing the driveway. He stated that the placement of the driveway was partially determined by the Fire Department requirements and criteria. Commissioner Leon stated he was at the property and agreed that the driveway was a challenge. He suggested the architect be very careful with the placement of any retaining walls in the front area to make sure there is as much view of traffic as possible. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Racisz if he has considered tapering the driveway to have a better visual of traffic. Mr. Racisz answered that was possible. He also explained that the driveway was designed to cover as small amount of the lot as possible with the least amount of grading as possible, noting these are primary objectives of the City. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if lowering the driveway to match the existing conditions will affect the design. Mr. Racisz stated that had not been studied, but noted there is some flexibility. David Maupin asked to give his time to Doug Maupin. Vice Chairman Cruikshank agreed. Doug Maupin stated that he was very tight on the lot coverage, however with the trees gone and the driveway built it will be much easier to exit the property. He stated he would also be happy to widen the approach at Palos Verdes Drive East, and he would work with staff to make that happen. Director Mihranian stated that the conditions have requirements that require the applicant to receive approval from the Public Works Department and that all of these issues will be addressed before any building permits are issued. Victor Rzeteljski (30411 Palos Verdes Drive East) stated Mr. Maupin has met with him to discuss his concerns with the proposed construction. He noted his concerns were proximity, privacy, and price. He explained that the issues stem from the upper house on lot 2 and the proximity to his home, which leads to privacy issues. He was satisfied with the solution to make the bathroom windows of an opaque material. He was also concerned with the location of the swimming pool, as it is proposed only six feet from his property line and can be seen from his balcony. He stated that building a wall and adding a large hedge for privacy would help address the issue. He noted the owner has documented these changes in emails. Finally, he questioned if two new houses near his home would negatively affect his property value, but stated he was in favor of the construction. Commissioner James noted Mr. Rzeteljski has a similar type of driveway, and asked if there have been any problems or incidents with this driveway. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2016 Page 4 Mr. Rzeteljski answered there have been some close calls, but could only recall two incidents where a car was actually struck, but with no injuries. Vice Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon stated he didn't see any conditions of approval related to the block wall at the swimming pool Director Mihranian noted that what the speaker has conveyed is that there are negotiations taking place between parties that staff was not aware of, and therefore this was not included in the conditions of approval. He stated that if it was the Commission's desire to memorialize such conditions, they should be read into the record and made part of the resolution. Commissioner Leon moved to approve the project as recommended by staff with two conditions added: the first being the addition of a block wall at the south edge of the swimming pool; the second being the requirement of obscure glass at two windows at the master bedroom bath. Seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Director Mihranian noted that the plans currently show a five-foot tall retaining wall around the swimming pool and asked the Commission if the condition was to add height to that wall, and how high the wall was to be. He suggested the Commission may want to reopen the public hearing to discuss the issue with the architect or property owner. Vice Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Tim Racisz stated the wall is retaining five feet and adding a six-foot high fence on the neighbor's side would make it eleven feet high at the highest point. Vice Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion to ask that the Public Works Department do a special study on this proposed driveway for the safety of the residents and those driving on Palos Verdes Drive East. Commissioner Leon accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner James noted that Mr. Maupin had commented he would be willing to widen the driveway at the bottom for safety purposes. He stated that he was very concerned about the safety issues at this driveway, and if the applicant was willing to make this change he felt it should be part of the motion as well. Director Mihranian felt that the condition of approval that the Public Works Department must review the project, and add that it would the driveway and line of sight issue, should be broad enough to capture Commissioner James' concerns. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2016 Page 5 Commissioner Leon accepted the amendment to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Nelson cautioned that, while he was in favor of the safest driveway possible, he was not in favor of sending this project back to the Fire Department for review. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he has concerns with the size of the houses, especially on lot 2. However, because there has been no objections from the neighbors, he would support the motion. Commissioner James had the same concerns, but noted the architect has done a good job in ensuring the homes comply with the code. He was not sure it was up to the Commission to take a job that does comply with the code and impose some sort of philosophical constraint. He again stated his concern with the driveway. In regards to the proposed privacy wall, Director Mihranian noted that the code states that a combination wall, which is a retaining wall with a freestanding wall added to it, cannot exceed 8 feet from the low side. In this case, the wall would be 11 feet, so a separate application would have to be processed for a Minor Exception Permit. He noted, however, that if the 6-foot privacy wall is set back three feet from the retaining wall they will be considered two separate walls and could be approved without the need for the Minor Exception Permit. Vice Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Mr. Maupin stated he would be happy to move the wall three feet. Director Mihranian added that moving the wall may then be in the easement, and the wall cannot be in the easement without the easement holder's authorization. Without the authorization, it may result in a modification to the pool and spa. Mr. Maupin stated that would mean the pool and spa would be three feet narrower, which would be fine. In speaking with Mr. Rzeteljski, he also noted that he could build a six foot wall on Mr. Rzeteljski's property line, which would take the wall out of the easement. Vice Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to amend the motion to add a six-foot privacy wall along the property line outside of the easement area, along the southern property line parallel to the pool and spa. Seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion to approve the proposed project as amended, thereby adopting PC Resolution No. 2016-09 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and PC Resolution No. 2016-10 was approved, (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2016 Page 6 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on August 9, 2016 Commissioner Emenhiser requested an update to the General Plan be added to the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Director Mihranian noted that this meeting would be adjourned to a closed session meeting on Monday, August 8 at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall's Community Development Department conference room. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2016 Page 7