Loading...
PC MINS 20050524CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 2005 CALL TO ORDER App ved June 14, 05 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Perestam led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Golida, Karp, Mueller, Perestam, Vice Chairman Knight, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, and Associate Planner Blumenthal. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed 2 items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1 and a copy of an email received at pc©rpv.com. He also reported that the City Council had heard an appeal of a Planning Commission decision of an enclosed balcony at their last meeting, and denied that appeal. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON -AGENDA ITEMS None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Revision to Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00160): 49 1/4 Rockinghorse Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project. He also explained that the applicant is requesting to modify the conditions of approval to delete conditions 14, 22, 23, and 25. He explained that the driveway has already been graded, but showed through aerial photographs that the road had been partially graded as early as 1997, however all the past grading was done without permits and therefore this application was considered a request for after -the -fact grading. He explained that the applicant had a biologist look at the property, and found there are isolated communities of Coastal Sage Scrub on the site, however it is not sufficient in size to be constituted as habitat. Additionally, none of the Coastal Sage Scrub was occupied by gnatcatchers, and the Coastal Sage Scrub on the property will not be impacted by the project. He noted, however, that the biologist was recommending some conditions of approval that are not currently included in the proposed resolution. He stated those conditions would be: 1) The construction drawings shall clearly delineate the extent of the native foliage and the biologist shall review and approve that plan; and, 2) Orange safety fencing shall surround the Coastal Sage Scrub for its protection. He concluded by explaining that staff felt all the necessary findings to approve the grading permit could be made and was recommending approval subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Golida referred to the conditions recommended by the biologist, and asked what regulates related to construction are associated with Coastal Sage Scrub. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that Coastal Sage Scrub is a habitat found throughout the city on private property, and there is a Coastal Sage Scrub protection ordinance. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if they knew if the biological report was prepared before or after the road had been cut. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that the road was cut before the report was prepared, however the biologist was comfortable in stating the Coastal Sage Scrub was not damaged. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the biologist could conclude whether or not Coastal Sage Scrub had been removed to build the road. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the biologist could not determine that. Commissioner Golida asked staff where on the property the Coastal Sage Scrub was located. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that although the biologist concluded that Coastal Sage Scrub will be avoided, staff does not know exactly where the Coastal Sage Scrub is located on the property, and that was one of the questions staff had of the biologist. Associate Planner Blumenthal added that one of the conditions of approval is that the location of the Coastal Sage Scrub be added to the construction plans. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 2 Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Stan Rinehart 49 174 Rockinghorse (applicant) distributed some topographic maps to the Planning Commission, which he felt would clear up some issues the Commissioners may have. He explained that the topo map was done in 1989 by South Bay Engineering, and was actually done from an earlier topo map. He noted that the map shows the road cut. He stated that he is aware of the letters from the neighbors and has seen the conditions staff would like to impose on his project because of the letters, and has no issues with the proposed conditions. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the easement would be used by both Mr. Rinehart and the neighbor. Mr. Rinehart stated that it would be up to the neighbor, as he does have rights over that easement, as well as the Water Company and Fire Department. Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Rinehart if he has checked with the Fire Department to determine if the road is adequate for their needs. Mr. Rinehart answered that he has had extensive contact with the Fire Department, noting that the Fire Department was pleased he was adding a fire hydrant, a full size turnaround, and the improved grade of the road. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Rinehart when he obtained the easement from his neighbor, Mr. Lassiter, and if he knew when the grading took place on the road. Mr. Rinehart stated he obtained the easement in March of 2005 and that the grading took place in April. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Rinehart how the cut down on the property benefits Mr. Lassiter. Mr. Rinehart explained that Mr. Lassiter is working with several neighbors to ask the City to redraw and redesignate the Open Space Hazard Zone on the properties, and one of the first steps is to have a geologic study done. He stated that in order to do that study Mr. Lassiter had to get the drilling equipment onto his property. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Rinehart if he gave Mr. Lassiter permission to drill on his property. Mr. Rinehart stated there was no grading done on his property. Ed Lassiter 51 Rockinghorse Road explained he bought the property at 49 Rockinghorse in 1974, and shortly afterwards bought the property at 49 1/8 Rockinghorse, which the easement runs through. He stated that at that time there was a dirt road going down the property to a stable and he used that road and kept it in good Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 3 repair. He explained that the water company has a main line that runs diagonally across the property, and that line has ruptured twice during the last 20 years. He gave permission for the water company to use his road for access and the water company graded the road and brought in heavy equipment at that time. He stated that the most recent grading done was to allow drilling equipment onto his property to perform geologic studies. Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Lassiter about the lower road shown on the maps. Mr. Lassiter explained that the lower road existed before he had the property and is shown clearly on the old topo map. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Lassiter if he was aware of any shrubs or plans being removed by the water company when they graded the road. Mr. Lassiter answered there were plants on the dirt road when the water company graded it, which were removed during the grading. Commissioner Golida asked Mr. Lassiter if there has recently been any widening or cutting on the existing road. Mr. Lassiter answered that he hired a company to come in to clear the brush from the road, not to do any grading. Commissioner Golida asked Mr. Lassiter if terms were being mixed together, noting that when talking about the water company doing grading, it would probably be more accurate to state the water company was clearing brush along the road. Mr. Lassiter felt that was correct. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Lassiter if he was involved in the previous easement discussions with the neighbors. Mr. Lassiter answered that he was not involved in the previous easement discussions. Commissioner Karp questioned if there was no grading that occurred, why was a grading permit needed. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff felt there was grading done at the site, noting that staff looked at aerial photographs and the cut at the site looks recent. Commissioner Karp asked if clearing existing brush from an existing road be considered grading. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it would not be considered grading, and that staff considers grading to be a 3 -foot cut or a 3 -foot fill, or more. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 4 Associate Planner Blumenthal clarified that that the 6 foot cut on the upper road shown in the photograph was done some time ago, however it was done without permits and is considered an after -the -fact request. He noted that the cuts on the lower portion of the driveway appear to be recent and range from 3 to 4 feet in height, and was also done without the benefit of permits. Shirley Borks 15 Coach Road stated that her house is across the canyon from the 49 1/4 Rockinghorse and oriented towards the canyon. She appreciated that staff has addressed some of her concerns, stating that the primary concern is the visual relationship of the roadway with the natural look of the canyon, as viewed from most of her house, deck, and yard. She disagreed with the staff's findings that the majority of the roadway visible to her property is the upper portion of the roadway. She stated that nobody came into her house to see how intrusive this roadway is to her view. She stated that if the roadway is approved she will have to endure noise and glare from cars coming and going from both the existing access way and the new second road, which is wider than required and unusually long and not comparable with any other driveway in the neighborhood. She noted that the previously approved plan allowed for a driveway that was attached to the existing access way and had no new impact to any neighboring property. She felt that if the previously approved plan was not workable then perhaps a new plan should be designed and submitted that does not impact the neighbors. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the revision before them. Vice Chairman Knight referred to staffs photograph and asked if that was the view she had from her residence. Ms. Borks stated that was not the view, and hoped the Planning Commission had a chance to look at the photos she submitted. She noted that in the 45 years she has lived in her home she has not previously seen what is being referred to as the lower road. Commissioner Perestam asked Ms. Barks if, at the time of the approval of the original plan and the associated easement approvals, she was aware of what was happening. Ms. Borks answered that she was not aware of what was going on, other than a house was proposed. She stated that she had no objections to the house, as it seemed to be nicely designed and situated well on the property. However, she became aware of quite a bit of grading occurring on the property as well as the removal of great amounts of vegetation, and called City staff to find out what was going on. David Falstrup 49 % Rockinghorse Road stated that his original concerns over the proposed single-family residence have been reduced significantly, but still have some concerns. He stated that his main concern continues to be maintaining the ability to widen the road to the full width of the easement, and felt the new plan avoids interference with that area and a much better solution. However, the new plan suggests there could be possible grading and landscaping in the easement area, and felt that any Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 5 trees or landscaping would prevent his ability to use the easement as an easement. He was concerned that during construction earth may be moved from the easement area making it harder to use the area as an easement. He therefore asked that any permits granted specifically prohibit any earth movement or landscaping of any kind in the easement area. He also asked that this new house be required to have some drainage from the street onto their property to help take some of the load off of their property, as during heavy rains all of the runoff from the street lands on his property. Commissioner Gerstner noted that Rockinghorse Road is a private street and that there are easements between the neighbors for that road. He asked Mr. Falstrup if private easements are not typically private agreements between neighbors and that drainage and maintenance on that easement would not be a private agreement between the parties. He felt that Mr. Falstrup was suggesting the City get involved in managing the drainage of the road. Mr. Falstrup stated that he was not sure what the City was allowed to get involved with in terms of drainage on a private road. He felt that if the City were allowed to get involved with the drainage, it would be very appropriate in this instance. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the same principle would apply with the grading and landscaping in the easement. Mr. Falstrup disagreed, noting that in the previous Planning Commission decision recognized the need to not allow any form of interference with that section of the easement. Commissioner Mueller was unclear regarding Mr. Falstrup's concerns with the drainage, as staff had concluded the applicant was not putting any improvements on the easement, and asked Mr. Falstrup why he felt the applicant was responsible for the drainage on the easement, Mr. Falstrup stated there is only one drain, which is at the bottom of the hill where his property is located. Commissioner Mueller asked how there is a nexus between this project and the drainage. Mr. Falstrup explained he was trying to state his concerns and if the City can exert an influence on the drainage this would be the place to do so. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Falstrup why he and the applicant could not come to an agreement regarding the easement. Mr. Falstrup explained that the applicant's requirement was that the easement should allow for parking for the entire community, which he disagreed with. Mr. Falstrup felt the Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 6 parking in the easement should be limited to one or two cars only. He stated his main concern was that the road could be widened. Mr. Rinehart (in rebuttal) stated that the old driveway plan ran into some problems with the easement and there did not seem to be the ability to modify the easement in such a way as to make everyone happy. Regarding the concerns of Mrs. Borks, he stated he is very happy to accept all of the conditions put in place by staff and if there were any other ways to help screen the driveway he would be happy to take them under consideration, as he is open to any ideas that might help. Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Rinehart to comment on the issue of parking on the easement that was raised by Mr. Falstrup. Mr. Rinehart explained that it was agreed that the easement would be used to widen the road by ten feet, as the road is very narrow at that section. He stated that the widening of the road for emergency vehicles was a good idea and the Fire Department was most likely going to require it be done as part of the driveway entrance. He explained that if he called that widened area out for parking the Fire Department would most likely reject the plan, as they would not want parking on that turn. He also noted that each of the neighbors at the end of the road wanted a private parking space deed to them. He stated at that point, having to deed private parking spots on a widened road area that was supposed to be for emergency vehicle access along with the requirements of the Fire Department, he realized it was not going to happen. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked staff how far Mrs. Borksresidence is from the proposed residence, on a horizontal scale, and the elevation difference. Associate Planner Blumenthal displayed an aerial photograph and noted that Mrs. Borks' residence is substantially above the applicant's property that the house is approximately 100 to 150 feet from the proposed project. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify the proposed screening for the driveway. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff was suggesting that there be no lighting on the driveway and to provide a hedge line along the roadway to be planted 36 to 42 inches in height to adequately screen the headlights of cars and the view of the driveway. Also, the retaining walls are to be decorative walls. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the Planning Commission should keep in mind where the headlights are shining arid noted that there is a difference between a headlight shining in through the window of a house and a headlight that you can see on a car across the way. He stated that the road slopes down at approximately 14 percent and that headlights on cars are set up in such a way that they shine straight ahead and down, therefore he did not feel the headlights on cars would be shining directly into the Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 7 windows of the home across the canyon. He noted that the residents would be able to see the headlights of the car driving down into the canyon. He felt, however, that at the upper portion of the road where a car will go slightly up before coming down, at that point of transition the resident across the canyon may get a brief flash of light into the home because of the headlights. Director/Secretary Rojas cautioned that planting vegetation near the upper part of the road will have to be looked at very carefully, as it would be possible that the vegetation could block the line of sight for cars exiting onto the street. Chairman Tetreault noted that the applicant is trying to gain access to his property via a driveway, however what is being proposed is a driveway where the majority of the driveway is not on his property and after -the -fact grading, none of which is not on his property. He asked staff to clarify whom the decision by the Planning Commission will affect and whom it will be imposed upon. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that Mr. Lassiter officially owns the property where the driveway is located, however Mr. Rinehart has entered into an agreement with Mr. Lassiter for the easement. Regardless of when the grading was done, Mr. Rinehart has agreed to address the issues that have arisen, and Mr. Lassiter has signed the application and submitted a letter giving Mr. Rinehart permission to process the application. He stated that no matter what has happened with the grading in the past, Mr. Rinehart has taken the responsibility to make sure the issues are dealt with and the driveway is graded out and paved properly. Director/Secretary Rojas added that having Mr. Lassiter sign the application means that Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Rinehart are actually co -applicants. As such, the City has the authority to impose conditions that affect both co -applicants. He stated that the City Attorney has reviewed the situation and agrees. Commissioner Mueller asked if there had been any discussion of a condition imposed regarding parking on the easement in the previous hearing. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that parking requirements on the easement had not been discussed at the previous public hearing, and that the discussions focused on safety and the ability to drive through the easement. Commissioner Mueller asked what is required of the City in terms of providing access to the property, in terms of a driveway. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that this property was subdivided prior to the incorporation of the City, and unfortunately the majority of the property is on an extreme slope, which would not be allowed under the current Code. In discussions with the City Attorney, she stated that the City cannot allow any type of access that would impede someone from improving their easement or restrict their ability to use the easement to the full extent. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Mueller asked if the City is obligated to provide access to the property via this new proposal. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that, since this is a legally sub -divided lot, some type of residence has to be approved there with access. However, that does not necessarily require approval of what the applicant is currently proposing, as there could be alternative designs, including moving the location of the house. He explained that staff had originally felt that the current location of the house was the most feasible location. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:05 the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:15 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) Vice Chairman Knight noted the condition stating there is to be no illumination of the driveway, and questioned if the applicant would be allowed to add lighting near the home that would also illuminate a portion of the driveway. Director/Secretary Rojas felt that lighting would be allowed, as it would be lighting the area near the residence, and that an exception could be added to the condition to allow for lighting near the garage and residence. Commissioner Mueller asked what the required width of a driveway this length would be. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the minimum width of a driveway in the City is 10 feet, however the Fire Department has additional requirements which typically requires 15 feet or more. Commissioner Gerstner felt he could make the necessary findings to approve the project. He also felt that the conditions of approval that the applicant was asking to be removed pertain to the previous application and issues that no longer exist. He felt that there are issues regarding the grading and lighting that should be discussed, however he felt this proposal is significantly better than the previously submitted proposal. He felt this proposal is much safer, less obtrusive, and provides reasonable access to the house. He stated he was a bit concerned about the neighbor across the canyon, however he noted that for many years that resident has enjoyed a canyon view across an undeveloped pieces of private property, and to expect this private property to never be developed is not reasonable. He felt that the road going through the property is not an extraordinary or unreasonable development for that piece of property. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Perestam shared Commissioner Gerstner's opinion on the preferred driveway solution. He also felt that given the uniqueness of the parcel, he felt this proposal was reasonable. He was troubled by the grading that had occurred, but was uncertain what to do about it, if anything. Vice Chairman Knight agreed that this solution for access to the property is better than what was previously proposed. He was troubled, however, about the grading that had taken place on the property. He wanted to make sure that the conditions recommended by the biologist in terms of the road are included in the conditions of approval. He was also concerned about the neighbor across the canyon and the issues of the headlights. He felt this proposal was an improvement for fire access and would benefit other neighbors in the area. Commissioner Mueller thanked Ms. Borks and her neighbors for bringing the grading to the attention of the City and was troubled that the applicant and/or Mr. Lassiter chose to grade the area before getting permits from the City. He felt that the previous application was difficult and unworkable, especially with the issues of the easement. He felt that access to the property is best obtained by the present configuration, although if someone came up with another configuration with a shorter driveway, it would mitigate some of the concerns the neighbors have about the headlights. He felt, however, that staff's recommendations for the driveway does help mitigate the glare of the headlights to the neighbors. Commissioner Karp felt that most of his comments had been covered by the other Commissioners. He explained that when he first reviewed this application he divided the issues between the violations for the grading of the driveway and the concept of the house. He stated that the grading of the driveway bothered him, as he did not want other developers to follow suit and grade before coming before the Planning Commission for approvals. He felt that in this situation the grading was part of an extraordinary circumstance and not a policy that the Planning Commission will grant permits after -the -fact. He stated that he was prepared to accept this proposal as written. Chairman Tetreault felt this was a very difficult lot to work with, and as a legally created lot the City was obliged to allow construction on the property. He felt that many alternatives had been explored regarding access and that the present alternative was acceptable. He was concerned, however, about the grading that had occurred without permits issued by the City. He explained that he needed to look at the property as if the grading had not occurred, and would the Planning Commission then allow that type of grading to be done. He stated that he could accept the Biologist's report that the grading did not occur in an area that is protected, and given the other circumstances, he would be able to approve the grading if it had not already been performed. He agreed with Commissioner Karp that it was important to emphasize that property owners or developers could not go ahead and build structures or do work without permits, come to the Planning Commission and ask for an after -the -fact permit, and expect it to be Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 10 granted. He therefore felt he could make the necessary findings, noting this is a very difficult lot, and was in favor of approving the project as recommended by staff. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the grading was done in order to get equipment down to do test borings to allow Mr. Lassiter and other neighbors to deal with a separate issue in the City. He felt that the grading was done thinking it was not going to be a problem with the City. He did not think the grading was done in order to accommodate the grading for Mr. Rinehart. He agreed with the other Commissioners in that he absolutely did not want to send a message that after -the -fact work will always be approved by the Planning Commission, noting that he will absolutely reject things in the future that were done without permits. Commissioner Gerstner moved to accept staff's recommendation, as proposed, including the deletion of conditions that no longer apply. He also moved to include the conditions suggested by the biologist that the construction drawings clearly delineate the extent of the native foliage and the biologist shall review and approve that plan and that orange safety fencing shall surround the coastal sage scrub for its protection. He further moved to not include anything with regards to additional road drainage at the top of the road and that there be some type of screening at the top that is consistent with the view triangle that will be maintained to prevent headlights shining directly into any other residence across the canyon, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Vice Chairman Knight moved to amend the motion to correct condition no. 9 so that it reads the retaining walls shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Commissioner Gerstner accepted the amendment to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Mueller felt the language regarding the blocking of the headlight glare could be worded in a clearer and more precise way. He began by suggesting that in Condition No. 9 of Exhibit A to generalize the word trees to include foliage and/or trees so that hedges could be planted to provide continuous screening where possible. He also suggested adding a condition that states that in order to reduce the glare of the headlights to the homes across the canyon trees shall be placed along the driveway, especially at the entrance at the top of the driveway from Rockinghorse Road spur. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that the wording could be added to Condition 8, noting that the condition is subject to the review and approval of the Director and that will staff to work with the applicant to chose the appropriate type of species that will not grow too tall. Chairman Tetreault noted that Mr. Lassiter has granted a 15 -foot wide easement to Mr. Rinehart and that the road is required to be 15 feet wide. Therefore he felt that the foliage being suggested in the conditions would be placed outside the easement area and onto the Lassiter property, and asked staff if the presented a problem. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 11 Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that since Mr. Lassiter is a co -applicant on the application, the conditions would still apply to his property. He recommended, however, getting a written statement from Mr. Lassiter where he agrees to the conditions and will comply with all conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Knight moved to amend the motion to modify the language in Condition No. 9 to clarify the applicant would have the right to put a light on his structure illuminating that portion of the driveway. Therefore, he suggested adding language saying that with the exception of lighting attached to the structure in a manner not to glare off of the property per City Code. Commissioner Mueller suggested for clarification that the wording be no lighting of the driveway except within 20 feet of the garage area, and Vice Chairman Knight agreed. Commissioner Gerstner agreed to the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he wanted to make sure there was no conflict with the suggested conditions and any provisions of the open space hazard district, as the adjoining property is in the open space hazard area. He stated that in looking at the Code he has come across something that is giving him some concern and needs to discuss with the City Attorney. He therefore recommended that the Planning Commission take action on the motion and continue the item to the next hearing, but not close the public hearing, so that staff can consult with the City Attorney regarding the issue of the open space hazard, and if a condition needs to be added staff can add that and the Planning Commission can review it at the next hearing. He explained that the project would not be approved until the Resolution is adopted, which would most likely happen at the next meeting. The amended motion was approved to keep the public hearing open and the Resolution be brought back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting, (7- 0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-000681: 30161 Via Borica Assistant Planner Sohn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. She stated that while staff was able to make the necessary findings, staff received an e-mail from a neighboring property owner stating five concerns with the proposed project. She explained his concerns, noting that staff added a condition that one of the two proposed windows on the north side be relocated to the south side of the residence and replaced with a smaller window, and that both windows proposed on the north side be of translucent material. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 12 Commissioner Karp asked if a condition of approval be added that would require a class A roofing shingle be installed. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that it would not be a Development Code concern and in order to require it, the Planning Commission would have to make some sort of nexus. Vice Chairman Knight asked why the 61 square feet at the garage was separated out from the rest of the application with a separate conclusion. Assistant Planner Sohn explained that the garage addition was separated out because it can be approved through a Site Plan Review and does not have to be approved along with the Height Variation. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the garage addition was before the Planning Commission to approve or not approve. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the garage addition is not subject to the discretion of the Planning Commission and if the rest of the project is denied the garage addition could still be built. Assistant Planner Sohn added that she included the garage addition in her staff report since part of the proposed second story addition will be over the proposed garage addition. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Jeff Smith 22850 Crenshaw Blvd, Torrance stated that he is the architect for the project and representing the homeowner. He clarified that the existing roof and new roof would be a composition shingle roof, which is a class A fire rated material. He explained that the addition is proposed in this location mainly because if it were to be located over the main body of the house it would impact the view from several neighbors across the street. He stated that he read Mr. Lu's concerns, and noted that the applicant's house is 9'-3" from the property line, as opposed to Mr. Lu's house which is 5 to 6 feet from the property line. He stated that the applicant's house is also lower than the house to the north. He stated that the 6 -foot window shown on the north elevation cannot be maintained when moved to the south elevation, therefore, smaller windows are proposed. He stated that the new windows will be of an obscure glass so that the applicant cannot look into the Lu's second -story bedroom. Sunny Lu 30155 Via Borica stated she was representing her father. She stated that she did not feel the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character and that the proposed structure will cause an unreasonable infringement of privacy. She noted that the proposed changes to the two windows may remedy that situation somewhat, but she was unsure as to what the final terms of the conditional approval will be. She also had concerns regarding the view she would have of the Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 13 street and the negative affect of the light and air they currently enjoy. Regarding the concern of neighborhood compatibility, she felt that 2 two-story structures very close to each other with a strong vertical emphasis would be a great disruption in the rhythm of the streetscape. Regarding architectural style and material, she felt that the open space between structures will be compromised with this proposal. She explained that the two structures form a V space between the house and this V shape would be exacerbated with the second story addition, which would make the houses appear closer to each other. Finally, she explained that the proposed addition would block the view of the street. She realized that this is not within the mandated, protected viewing area set out in the code, however it is a concern related to property depreciation values and quality of life. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the Lu residence is set back from the property line the minimum distance allowed by Code, while the proposed addition will be setback approximately 9 feet. He felt that the extra space that both the applicants and the Lus are enjoying is provided mostly by the applicant and asked Ms. Lu if she put any weight on that. Ms. Lu referred to the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook regarding neighborhood compatibility and setbacks and the intent of the Planning Commission to ensure the distances are comparable and consistent throughout the neighborhood. Thomas Lu 30155 Via Borica stated that the two residences are very close to each other at one point, and was very concerned. He also felt that having 2 two-story homes next to each other would be very strange looking from the street. He showed pictures taken from different bedroom windows of the current view of the neighbor's house, explaining that when the second story is added the neighbors will be able to look directly into these bedrooms. He concluded by stating that people live in Palos Verdes for the quality of life and that this quality of life has to be protected. He stated he is willing to work with the neighbor and has suggested compromises. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the window changes are part of the compromises referred to by Mr. Lu. Assistant Planner Sohn clarified that the window change was a compromise. She also explained that Mr. Lu had suggested that the applicant recess what is proposed on the second -story addition. Assistant Planner Sohn stated that the proposed second story addition meets all Development Code requirements. She also noted that the applicant's residence is currently the smallest in the neighborhood and after the addition it will still be less bulky than eight of the residences in the neighborhood and smaller than Mr. Lu's residence by 343 square feet. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Lu if the applicant presented any other plans to him showing alternate locations for the second story addition. Mr. Lu did not remember seeing any other plans. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Lu if he suggested to the neighbor any alternate location for the second story addition, and if so, did they explain the issues of view impairment to the neighbors across the street. Mr. Lu explained that he suggested to staff the addition be setback as it will look better from the street and it will not be as close to his home. Mr. Smith (in rebuttal) stated that his intent has been to build out over the existing garage, noting that if the second story is built out over the existing single story of the house the resulting view impairment to the homes across the street would make the project not viable. He noted that the proposed addition is not a large addition and that he designed a hip roof to reduce the mass of the house from the street. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight empathized with the Lus, however the proposed addition fits into the standards of the Development Code. He understood why the addition was placed where it is and appreciated the hip roof as opposed to a gable roof. He was concerned that the changes to the windows are not on the plans before the Planning Commission and would be more comfortable approving plans that reflect all of the changes. Commissioner Gerstner was confident that the changes to the windows are fairly finite changes and would be taken care of by staff. Commissioner Perestam stated that he agrees with all of staff's findings regarding the project and that it is well within reason to approve the project. He added that he understands the concerns of the neighbor, however he felt the necessary findings can be made to approve the project. Commissioner Mueller agreed, pointing out that views of the street and open-air considerations are not protected by the Code. He felt in this case these concerns are mitigated in that the applicant is not building out to the setback lines. He felt that moving the second story addition to another part of the house will bring other view considerations into play from other residences. He felt that the concerns regarding privacy have been addressed by staff. Chairman Tetreault also sympathized with the Lus, however he also agreed that the proposed addition meets all of the Development Code and view ordinance requirements. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he felt the style of this proposed addition was very prevalent in the neighborhood and was not unique in any way, and therefore could make that finding. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2005-24, thereby approving the Height Variation, as modified to state that the north elevation of the proposed addition shall contain a maximum of two windows, one of which shall Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 15 be no larger than 2 x 3 and one which shallbe no larger than 3 x 3 and both windows shall be of translucent material, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Tetreault noted it was after 11:00 and the Planning Commission rules state that no new business shall be heard after 11:00. Commissioner Mueller moved to suspend the Planning Commission rules and to continue on with the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner, which was unanimously approved. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00552)1 26504 Hawkhurst Dr Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and noting that staff was able to make all nine findings in order to approve the height variation. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the height variation subject to the recommended conditions Commissioner Mueller asked staff how they came to the conclusion that the proposed addition will be compatible with the neighborhood, as the house will be 1 1/2 larger than the next largest home in the neighborhood. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that square footage is one of the aspects of neighborhood compatibility, however it is not the only aspect taken into consideration. He stated that when reviewing a project where the resulting home will be larger than any in the neighborhood, staff also looks if the home is designed to minimize the appearance of the structure. He stated that staff feels that since the majority of the addition is to the rear of the structure and that the applicant has taken sufficient steps to reduce the bulk and mass of the structure, the size itself is not the defining feature of the home. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they only looked at the appearance of the home from the street, or if they also looked at the appearance from any other view. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the appearance was considered from the street. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they were looking at the structure assuming that the existing foliage in front is not present. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff looked at the structure assuming that the foliage was not present. Commissioner Golida asked staff, when reviewing a project for neighborhood compatibility, if they took into account the view of the proposed home from other people's homes. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 16 Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that standard practice is to review how the proposed home would appear from the streetscape, as directed in the Height Variation Guidelines. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the bay window in the side yard setback is per the City Guidelines. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it is allowed per the Development Code. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Terry Slaven stated that she is the architect for the project and representing the owners. She explained that when designing the addition she tried to avoid creating any bulk to the front of the house and the new height will be barely one foot higher than the existing ridgeline. She stated that most of the addition is to the rear, noting it was only 10 feet on the first floor and 10 feet on the second floor. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. In terms of parking spaces, Commissioner Mueller asked staff what the cut off was for requiring three parking spaces rather than two parking spaces. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered the cutoff was 5,000 square feet of habitable area, noting this residence will have approximately 4,398 square feet of habitable area. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they had visited any of the surrounding properties to see if the proposed addition would cause any view impairment. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff did an initial view analysis and determined there would be no potential view impairments caused by this structure that would require staff to visit the neighboring properties. He noted that staff has received no comment letters regarding potential view impairment. Commissioner Karp felt the Planning Commission should adopt staff recommendations, as the addition would be to the rear of the property and not visible from the street. Commissioner Perestam agreed with Commissioner Karp, noting that this lot accepts a large addition quite well without causing impact to the street in terms of bulk and mass, as well as there being no view impairment. Chairman Tetreault noted that in the past he has been very critical of homes that propose substantially large additions, however this home and property hide the addition quite well. He stated he was able to make all of the necessary findings to approve the project. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 17 Commissioner Mueller stated that he would agree with the comments made by the other commissioners, as in this instance the home appears to fit into the neighborhood. He noted that his only concern is on the use of the property, as there is only a two -car garage. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-25, thereby approving the Height Variation as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (7-0). 4. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00620): 6802 Sunmist Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He stated that while reviewing this project staff received two comment letters regarding the view impacts caused by the proposed structure. He explained the first comment letter came from 5752 Sunmist Drive and their concern was view impact, specifically the impact caused from the second story bedrooms. However, staff had to assess views from the first floor of the residence for the view analysis. He stated that there is no view impact from the first floor, therefore staff determined there would be no view impacts from the protected viewing area of 5752 Sunmist Drive. The second comment letter came from the residents at 29719 Stonecrest Drive, who were worried about their view from their rear deck. He explained that a view can be considered from a patio or outside of the house, however the Guidelines state that greater weight shall be given to interior views over the exterior view. He stated there is a view from the interior of the house, and staff felt that the interior view is the best and most important view, thus is the protected view for the property. He noted that the view from the interior is not blocked by the silhouette, and therefore staff determined that there would be no view impairment to this property from the proposed addition. Therefore, staff concluded that all nine findings could be made to approve the Height Variation and staff was recommending approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Mueller stated that he was concerned about the view impact and therefore visited all of the sites. He understood staff's findings for the property at 5752 Sunmist Drive, however he had questions about the view from 29719 Stonecrest Drive. He stated that when walking on the deck within 10 feet of the window he could see the flags of the silhouette. He asked staff if they had assessed the view from the deck, 10 feet from the picture window. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff did assess the view from different locations on the deck. He explained that staff did not take their view analysis from the deck as the Guidelines state that greater weight shall be given to interior views over the exterior views. He also stated that there are two trees on the Stonecrest Drive property that are blocking the view from the deck. Vice Chairman Knight noted that the second floor is cantilevered over the first floor on the side, and asked staff if they found that feature in any other homes in the area. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 18 Associate Planner Blumenthal did not recall if staff had found that particular feature in the neighborhood. Commissioner Mueller noted that once again this is a proposed addition that is substantially larger than other homes in the neighborhood and was concerned that the addition not only is in the rear but also near the side set back, and asked staff how they felt this was compatible with the neighborhood. Associate Planner Blumenthal agreed that this home would be larger than others in the neighborhood, however he noted that staff does not focus on just the size when doing their analysis, but rather focuses on all aspects of the project. He explained that the majority of the addition was to the rear of the residence and the architectural design would not make this house stand out in the neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Laura Montealeqre, Venice, stated that she is representing the owners and agrees with the findings of the staff recommendations and was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Mueller asked if, in designing the addition, any consideration was given to why the addition had to approach the side yard setback area. He asked if it was for convenience or if there was a fundamental design reason for this side addition. Ms. Montealegre explained that this is a split-level design and that the design had to go out slightly to the side to allow for more room in the small bedrooms. She noted that the addition still stays within the existing overhand of the roof. She also felt that this design helped to break up the appearance of one long wall along the side yard. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms. Montealegre if she was increasing the overhang of the roof on the side yard. Ms. Montealegre answered that she is not increasing the overhang in the side yard. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight was concerned about the cantilevering of the second floor over the first floor in regards to neighborhood compatibility. He could find no other home in the neighborhood that has this architectural feature, and was inclined to deny the project without prejudice or continue it to either extend out the bottom floor on the side yard so it is flush or take off the additional two feet on top. He felt this was introducing a whole new architectural element to the neighborhood and it will stand out. Commissioner Mueller stated that his concern was with the view that was being blocked by the additional two feet in the side yard. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 19 Commissioner Gerstner asked the Vice Chairman to clarify his concern regarding the cantilevered second floor. He asked if his concern was specifically the appearance of this portion of the addition from the street. Vice Chairman Knight explained that there are other homes in the neighborhood have a cantilever in the front setback, however this would be the only home that has the cantilever on the side yard. Therefore, this would be introducing a new element to the neighborhood as viewed from the street. Commissioner Karp felt that this may be introducing a new element to the neighborhood, however it is not unsightly or intrusive, and felt that in some instances variety can be a good thing. He stated that cantilevering is not a new concept, only architectural diversity, and did not see anything wrong with this design. Commissioner Mueller questioned whether any of the other Commissioners had visited the house across the street, noting that if he hadn't he would never have realized that the flags of the silhouette could be seen from that neighbors deck. Commissioner Perestam stated that he did visit the home across the street as well as next door to the applicant. He felt that the orientation of the view across the street was more to the right, and also noted that the vegetation on that property was quite overgrown. He felt that, in order for a property owner to maximize their view, everything possible should be done by that property owner to maintain the foliage on the property to keep it out of the view. Regarding the property owner next door to the applicant, he felt that there would be some view loss from the second story, however he did not think it was an overpowering loss of view and downstairs there is a spectacular view. Chairman Tetreault stated that he too visited both properties. He felt that the property across the street had various views of the ocean and the proposed addition would diminish these views. He also noted that there is a view from inside the house, and while it is not a tremendous view, it is a view. He also noted that there is a tree on their property that significantly blocks another view of the ocean. He felt that the property owner can do more to increase their own view and was not too troubled by the affect of this proposed addition to that neighbor's view, Commissioner Golida asked staff if they had any comments regarding the neighborhood compatibility of the cantilevered section of the proposed. Associate Planner Blumenthal responded that staff did not feel the cantilevered section of the addition was incompatible with the neighborhood, noting that when looking at the entire addition it does not stand out in the neighborhood. He explained that when staff does its analysis they note that because a certain feature is not found in the neighborhood it does not necessarily mean they will make a recommendation to not approve the project. He stated that if the Planning Commission feels this feature does make the house stand out in the neighborhood and make it incompatible with the Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 20 neighborhood, they can state that the neighborhood compatibility finding cannot be made. Chairman Tetreault stated that when at the site he noted there would be an overhang, however it did not strike him as being an issue that would cause this house to stand out in the neighborhood. He also noted that this residence would be the largest in the neighborhood, however because of the design he did not think the house looked overly large from the street. Commissioner Mueller felt that three concerns about the project have been raised: the architectural feature, the size of the project, and the view being blocked from the neighbor's deck, He felt that with these three issues the Planning Commission may have enough doubt to consider not approving the project at this time and possibly asking the architect to consider some type of compromise in the design. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the structure size and noted that when reviewing the staff report, if he notes the project is larger than those in the immediate neighborhood, it is a clue to him to take a look at the way the house appears and make sure it is compatible with the neighborhood. He felt that this proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood in that, although the number is larger, the mass of the house is not apparent from the street. Commissioner Golida moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-26, thereby approving the Height Variation as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Vice Chairman Knight stated he could not support the motion, as he cannot make the finding of neighborhood compatibility. He felt that introducing the new element of a cantilevered second story in the side yard stands out in the neighborhood. He stated that he would support a project that either eliminates the two -foot cantilever or a wall that is flush to the ground. Chairman Tetreault asked Commissioner Mueller if either of the two options suggested by the Vice Chairman would satisfy his concerns. Commissioner Mueller felt that eliminating the two feet on the upper floor would probably go a long way in preserving a majority of the view he was concerned about. Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing to allow the applicant's representative an opportunity to comment on the suggested alternatives. Laura Montealecire stated that she and the applicant would prefer to bring out the first floor addition to be in line with the second floor, thereby eliminating the cantilevered area. She explained that taking away the two feet on the second floor would create a bathroom that is seven feet wide, which is not acceptable to the owners. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 21 Commissioner Karp asked how far back Ms. Montealegre was proposing the two -foot extension of the lower story wall to go. Ms. Montealegre answered that it would be the extent of the bedroom downstairs, approximately 15 feet. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked the Vice Chairman if he would be comfortable approving this type of change without seeing the plans. Vice Chairman Knight stated he would like to see a plan before approving the change. Commissioner Golida asked staff where the primary viewing area was on the home across the street. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff determined the primary viewing area to be inside the house looking out of the picture window towards the ocean. Commissioner Mueller noted that the Guidelines state the view can be taken 10 feet from the interior, if the view is from the balcony. He felt that the view from the deck is the best and most important view, and did not understand why staff felt it was necessary to take the view from inside the home. Associate Planner Blumenthal read from the Guidelines where it states that in determining the view area greater weight generally will be given to locations within the primary structure than to locations outside the primary structure. He noted that there is a view from inside the structure, therefore the Guidelines direct that view to be considered. The motion to adopt the Resolution and approve the height variation as presented by staff was approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Mueller and Vice Chairman Knight dissenting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 5. Minutes of May 10, 2005 Vice Chairman Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Karp and Perestam abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. PRE -AGENDA FOR JUNE 14 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 22 The pre -agenda was approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 12:28 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 23