Loading...
PC MINS 20051025CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Approved November 22, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Members of a cub scout troop in the audience ied the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Golida, Karp, Mueller, Perestam, Vice Chairman Knight and Chairman Tetreault Absent: Commissioner Gerstner Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Blumenthal and Associate Planner Schonborn. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed 2 items of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 2 and gave a brief report on the City Council/Planning Commission joint meeting. He noted that the neighborhood compatibility issues raised at the joint workshop were going to be addressed by the Residential Standards Development Committee. Commissioner Mueller gave a brief report on the progress of the Residential Standards Development Committee. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items). NONE CONTINUED BUSINESS Height Variation Permit (Case No. Z0N2005-00404): 30136 Via Rivera Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the applicant is asking for additional time to address issues raised at a previous Planning Commission meeting and to correct the silhouette. Therefore, staff is recommending the item be continued to the November 22nd meeting. Vice Chairman Knight moved to continue the public hearing to November 22, 2005, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (6-0). PU LIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. Z0N2005-00071)i 28953 Crestridge Road Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He explained that in the initial analysis of view impairment caused by the proposed structure did not indicate any view impairment, however the property owner at 28949 Crestridge Road stated that they felt the structure did impair their view. He displayed a picture taken from 28949 Crestridge, noting that the proposed structure would be located behind a large pepper tree in the background. He stated that staff determined the proposed structure would impair a view of a vacant property near Crenshaw and Crestridge, however this property is developable land and therefore is not considered a protected view. He explained staff also received a letter from the property owners at 28757 Crestridge Road, noting that views from this property are mainly to the north and east, where the subject property is south of this property, therefore staff determined there is no view impairment to this property from the proposed addition. He explained that in looking at privacy impacts, staff noted that the applicant's building pad is lower than the adjacent pad, and staff felt that with the proposed second story addition it would give the applicant the ability to view into the adjoining properties rear yards which they cannot currently do. As such, staff has recommended a condition of approval to mitigate this impact that requires any windows on the east or west sides of the second floor be either clearstory or consist of opaque glass. Mr. Blumenthal noted a correction to Condition No. 12 of the conditions of approval, noting that lot coverage should be 35 percent rather than 22 percent. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review as conditioned by staff. Vice Chairman Knight asked if any existing retaining walls were going to remain on the property. Associate Planner Blumenthal noted on the plans where existing retaining walls were to remain. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if the attached trellis over the RV parking would be considered a carport. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 2 Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it would be considered a carport, and meets all of the Development Code restrictions. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the proposed grading was for the proposed RV parking only, or if the proposed grading also was necessary for part of the structure. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the proposed grading was for the RV parking. Vice Chairman Knight noted that, per the findings, the grading should be allowed for the primary permitted use of the property, and did not understand how the RV parking falls under the primary permitted use of the property. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that a Grading Permit is required for the primary use of the property, and past practice for staff and the Planning Commission have considered Grading Permits for driveways and accessory uses to the primary residential use, as they are accessory and incidental to the primary use of the property. Commissioner Perestam asked if was within the purview of the Planning Commission to ask that a tree be removed rather than trimmed. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that what is below the 16 foot line is not subject to the foliage or view analysis. He explained that staff writes the condition to remove or trim to give the applicant the option. Commissioner Perestam asked what recourse the neighbors have if the tree rapidly grows back into the viewing area. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff would contact the owners and request the tree be trimmed. He noted that, if necessary, the case could be turned over to Code Enforcement for compliance. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Olympia Greer 30034 Camino Santa Elise, Indio (architect) stated that she has reviewed the staff report and finds it thorough and complete. She explained that what is before the Planning Commission is a scaled down version of the original plan done last February. As a result of the early neighborhood consultation process and in response to the neighbor and staff's comments, the upper level was reduced and the total home was reduced to less that 5,000 square feet. She explained that a lot of thought was given in respect to the articulation of the house to minimize the concentration of areas and to break up the roofline. She felt that the neighbor's privacy has been respected by reducing the number of windows on the east side of the house and the use of opaque glass. She further explained that the trellis and gated enclosure of the RV resulted out Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 3 of the need to preserve a clean appearance of the driveway and to show concern to neighbors. Vice Chairman Knight referred to the plan and questioned the wall outside of the property line that is labeled new wall. He asked Ms. Greer if this wall is part of the project. Ms. Greer responded that the wall is not part of the project and that the surveyor identified the wall. She explained that the wall is on the neighbor's property and was put in by the neighbor. Vice Chairman Knight referred to the south elevation of the plan and noted there is no window shown, however on Sheet A of the drawings there is a window shown. He asked Ms. Greer to clarify. Ms. Greer explained that there will be a window in the location shown on Sheet A. Tom Jacobsen 28953 Crestridge Road (applicant) stated that the pepper tree has already been trimmed and will make sure the tree remains at or below 16 feet. Joe Dammer 28949 Crestridge Road displayed pictures of his view before the pepper tree had grown into his viewing area. He explained that it was very difficult to evaluate the impact of his view from the proposed residence because of the pepper tree. He explained there is a platform in the pepper tree and was concerned that people standing on the platform, can look directly onto his property. He stated that if the pepper tree is maintained at 16 feet and is well trimmed he would not have an issue with privacy. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Dammer if he would have any objections to this project as long as the tree is kept trimmed to the 16 -foot level. Mr. Dammer stated that was correct. Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Dammer to explain his concern with the platform in the tree. Mr. Dammer explained that he was not aware there was a platform in the tree before the tree was trimmed. He stated that this was a concern since from the platform one could look directly into his home. He stated that if the area around this platform is kept thinned and trimmed he did not have an objection, since he would be able to see when someone was standing on that platform. Vice Chairman Knight asked Mr. Dammer if the clearstory or opaque windows will also help address his issues of privacy. Mr. Dammer answered that they would. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 4 Olympia Greer (in rebuttal) noted that when she first started working on this project there was quite a bit of foliage on the properties which created privacy for both properties. She stated that some of the foliage on both properties has now been cut and the applicant's privacy in their yard has been reduced. She felt that a certain amount of foliage on both the properties will help tremendously with any privacy issues. Vice Chairman Knight asked Ms. Greer if she felt that when the tree is trimmed to 16 feet there will be an invasion of her client's privacy. Ms. Greer did not feel that was an issue, she simply wanted to make a general comment about the foliage. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms. Greer why she felt the stonework proposed was compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Greer answered that there is a Tuscany looking house a few doors down from her client, noting however that it does not use stonework. She stated that stone is not used extensively with her proposal, only at certain accented locations. She noted that stone has been used in driveways throughout Crestridge Road. She stated that the stonework would blend in with the stucco on the home. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Dammer to return to the podium. Commissioner Perestam identified a tree on the photograph and stated that he felt that tree also has a view impact on the Dammer's residence. He felt that if there is an impact from this tree, that the tree be trimmed and maintained at 16 feet. Mr. Dammer stated that the tree is barely above the roofline but has the potential of growing into his view very soon. He asked that the trees along the fence be maintained at 16 feet or a reasonable height so that they do not grow above the second story addition. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if the Planning Commission can require the platform be removed from the tree. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that City does not review or regulate tree houses. Further, the privacy analysis is done for the second story of the residence itself and not other parts of the property. Chairman Tetreault asked if the Planning Commission can craft any conditions of approval relative to the platform. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Planning Commission cannot add any conditions regarding the platform, as it is not before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Mueller stated that when he first reviewed this application he was surprised at the size of the residence, noting that it is rather large. He noted, however that the appearance of the residence from the street and surrounding properties does not seem to be a particular problem. He stated that his only concern may be the mass of the house. Commissioner Karp stated that he was pleased to see that someone has taken into account RV parking when designing a residence, rather than treating it as an after thought. He did not feel the house was very visible from the street, and therefore did not feel the size and mass of the house were relevant. He stated that he was in favor of approving the project. Vice Chairman Knight felt he could make the proper findings for approving the project. He noted that as houses become larger and the masses increase it becomes very difficult for them to blend in terms of scale and compatibility. He felt that the architectural design of this residence, and where it is placed makes this proposal borderline in terms of size, mass and bulk. He too agreed that the planning for the RV is a nice aspect of the project. Commissioner Perestam added that the view should be protected with all vegetation along the side of the house from the primary viewing area back. He stated that other than that, he was in favor of the project. Regarding the foliage, Commissioner Golida noted that while the neighbor may have the opportunity to approach the City in the future with a View Preservation application, if the Planning Commission has the ability to add a condition now regarding an existing tree and say that no vegetation or foliage shall exceed 16 feet in height in the viewing area, it may be an opportunity to consider. Nevertheless, he felt that he was able to make the findings to approve the project. Associate Planner Blumenthal noted that the photographs Mr. Dammer referred to were not taken from the viewing area, and therefore it would be hard for staff to determine if the tree encroaches into the code defined viewing area. He stated that the Planning Commission cannot condition a project on future foliage growth. He explained that the Commission has to look at what is existing. Chairman Tetreault stated that he too was concerned with the size of this project, however there are other homes in the neighborhood approaching this size. He felt that some of the homes appear to be designed to accentuate the size and bulk. He stated that this home is at the end of the cul-de-sac below the street level. He also felt that the size of this home is borderline, however because of its location and that there does not appear to be opposition in the neighborhood, he was inclined to approve the project. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-45, thereby approving the Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review application, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 6 Vice Chairman Knight suggested an amendment to the motion to correct the lot coverage mentioned in the Resolution to 35 percent, as suggested by staff. He also suggested adding OC- 3 conditions 5 and 6 concerning vegetation, so that the City can apply the OC -3 Control District requirements. He referred to page 13 of the staff report. Commissioner Karp accepted the amendment, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Commissioner Perestam was still concerned with the tree identified by Mr. Dammer in the photograph. He asked if there was a way to condition the approval so that staff could determine whether or not that tree was indeed in the viewing area and causing a view impairment. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that staff would have to do an additional foliage analysis to determine if the tree is greater than 16 feet and if it significantly impairs the view. Commissioner Perestam stated that the view is not currently impaired because the backdrop for the tree is the home. He explained that he was looking for a way to control future vegetation on the property that will create a view impact. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there is not a way to control the future vegetation through this permit, however in the future, if foliage grows over 16 feet and significantly impairs the view it will be subject to the view preservation process. Commissioner Golida questioned staff regarding their initial foliage analysis for the pepper tree. He asked staff if they looked at the tree in question or if it was overlooked, and if it was overlooked he felt staff had an obligation to go out to the site and look at the tree. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff goes to the property, determines what the best and most important view is, which is then considered the protected viewing area. He stated that staff stands in the viewing area and tries to determine what trees are in the actual view. He stated that in staff's analysis staff only identified the pepper tree as growing into the viewing area. He noted, however, that if the Planning Commission so desires, staff can go back to the property to do another foliage analysis to specifically look for that tree. He noted, however, that if the tree is to the left of the pepper tree, the scene behind the tree is developable land, which is not a protected view. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-45, as amended, was approved (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 7 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:25 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:40 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 3. Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. Z0N2005-00067): 6409 Via Canada Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation and Grading Permit. He showed a photograph and stated that the neighbor at 6408 Via Canada expressed a concern regarding view impairment. Therefore staff conducted a view analysis and determined that in light of the entire view frame, the area being obstructed was not significant. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings, and was therefore recommending approval of the project, as conditioned. Commissioner Karp asked if this residence was subject to the Art Jury's approval, and if so, have they approved it. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the residence is subject to the Art Jury's approval, and in speaking with the architect; it will be approved shortly with a few modifications. Commissioner Mueller discussed the view analysis and asked which room the best and most important view was taken from in the neighbor's house. Associate Planner Schonborn noted that the view was taken from the living room on the upper level of the home. Commissioner Mueller referred to the chimney, and asked if staff had considered reducing the magnitude of the top of the chimney to be consistent with the neighborhood. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that staff did not look at the chimney, mainly because the chimney and cupola would project into the sky and not be a view issue. He stated that if there is a view concern, staff can add a condition that stipulates that the fireplace and spark arresters not be any taller than the minimum required by the Building Code. He explained that many times the spark arrester on a chimney is an architectural feature and can very easily be reduced. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if any modifications were considered that would reduce the amount of blockage in the viewing area, particularly near the end of the house. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 8 Associate Planner Schonborn answered that it wasn't, particularly considering the overall scope of the view. He also noted that, instead of a gable roof, the architect had proposed a hip roof in that area which minimizes the view impairment. Commissioner Perestam referred to the tree in the front, and asked if the tree was part of the view analysis. Associate Planner Schonborn noted that the tree in question will be removed. Vice Chairman Knight asked if Via Canada is a public or private road. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that it is a public street. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the driveway is in compliance with the Public Works standards. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the driveway is in compliance, noting that the Public Works Department has reviewed the current plans. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the driveway will be to the Fire Department standards. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that the driveway is to current Fire Department standards, however if the Fire Department requests a change to the driveway, it will have to be done. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff if they knew the slope of the driveway up to the garage. Associate Planner Schonborn answered the driveway will not be very steep, approximately 10 percent, which is well in compliance with the 20 percent maximum slope. Vice Chairman Knight noted there is one section of flags on the silhouette which is flush with the current garage and asked if that was actually at the proper setback location. He questioned if the property was properly flagged, based on what is existing. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the applicant has submitted a certification form indicating the silhouette is in accordance with the plans. Vice Chairman Knight noted that the driveway retaining wall on the plan appears to be over 6 feet in height, however staff has indicated that the wall can be 5 feet maximum. Associate Planner Schonborn acknowledged that the plan shows a 6 foot wall and stated staff can add a condition that the driveway retaining wall be no taller than 5 feet. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Karp asked if the Planning Commission can require the utilities be placed underground. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the Development Code requires that all new utilities related to new construction be placed underground. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Diana Roupoli 6409 Via Canada (applicant) stated that she and her husband purchased this home with the intent of adding on to raise their family. She stated that in working with the architect their main concern was to minimize the impact of the addition to the neighbors. Vice Chairman Knight noted that the Planning Commission has been presented with several options for the front entrance modification and asked Ms. Roupoli if she had reviewed these options. Ms. Roupoli answered that she is aware of the options but has not seen the drawings. She stated that they are more than willing to modify the entry design and it is not an issue. Commissioner Perestam asked what color of stucco was being proposed. Ms. Roupoli answered that it will be an off-white color. Chairman Tetreault asked if the plans have been presented to the Art Jury. Lou Roupoli 6409 Via Canada (applicant) answered that they were before the Art Jury last night, with a favorable result. He stated that the Art Jury had suggested a few changes that he was in favor of. Vice Chairman Knight clarified that anything the Planning Commission approves is irrespective of any of the CC&Rs of the Art Jury. Commissioner Mueller asked the applicant what alternatives have been considered to address the neighbor's concerns on the east section of the addition. Mr. Roupoli explained that many of the trees on the property have already been cut, which opened up quite a bit of view area. Commissioner Mueller appreciated that, however he noted that the trees are not the issue. He asked what alternatives to the design have been considered to address the neighbor's concerns regarding the City light view on the east side of the property. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Roupoli explained that they had considered many design options for the eastern portion of the property, and felt that the current design was the best option in terms of her neighbor's concerns. Commissioner Mueller referred to the chimney and cupola, and asked if there had been any alternative designs to that structure. Mr. Roupoii explained that the original plan has been changed to incorporate a hip roof which gradually goes up to the ridgeline. He felt this design opens up more view area for the neighbor. Raul Podesta 30 Miraleste Plaza (architect) explained that the main concern of the Art Jury was the entry, which he plans to modify. He also noted that the Art Jury was concerned with the windows, which he will redesign to comply with their requirements. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Podesta what design alternatives were considered to reduce the view blockage on the east side of the property. Mr. Podesta explained that the hip roof was incorporated to the right side of the residence to minimize the impact to the neighbors. He also explained that he did not want to go over the existing roofline, and felt that was accomplished. He noted that the residence does not exceed the 16 -foot level. Commissioner Mueller asked if the second story could be articulated slightly to reduce the height between the ceiling and the roof. Mr. Podesta answered it may be possible to incorporate a 3 1/2: 12 -pitch roof, which will be approximately 6 inches below the existing roofline. He noted that it was a goal to keep the appearance of a single story house from the street. He also noted that the design of the structure has to take into account the considerations of the adjacent neighbor to the left of the property. Vice Chairman Knight noted that the garage is setback 16 feet from the front property line, yet the flag is flush with the garage. He noted that the plans call for a 20 -foot setback, and asked Mr. Podesta to explain the discrepancy. Mr. Podesta stated that the flag should be pushed back 4 feet, as it is currently set too far forward. He noted that the other flags are in the correct location. Mike Nichols 1010 Crenshaw Blvd, Torrance stated that he is available to answer any questions regarding the proposed grading for the project. He stated that the 6 -foot wall shown on the driveway section can easily be lowered to 5 feet. Commissioner Mueller asked if there would be any limitations in lowering the structure on the eastern side of the property. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Nichols answered that he has not considered what would be involved in lowering the garage area. Mr. Podesta added that he incorporated the same finish floor from the existing residence to the new residence. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Podesta if he were to step down approximately one foot, how would that affect the rest of the design. Mr. Podesta answered there would be more grading required with larger retaining walls at the side and rear. He also noted the driveway would increase from 10 percent to 15 percent. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Podesta about the fireplace and if the height could be reduced. He also asked if it could be relocated to the other side of the house. Mr. Podesta answered that the chimney can be lowered to 2 feet above the ridgeline. He did not think the fireplace could be located to the other side of the house, as it would not fit in with the layout of the house. Elva Mardesich 6408 Via Canada stated that the new house will block most of her view that she has had since she bought the house. She felt that the structure is so wide it is blocking both sides of her view. She also noted that the trees and shrubs are overgrown, which is also blocking her view. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms. Mardesich if the applicant had been to her property to look at the view from her property. Ms. Mardesich answered that the applicants had been to her property. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms. Mardesich what view she looked at over the east side of the applicant's property. Ms. Mardesich explained that she has a view from left to right over the applicant's property of city lights. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms. Mardesich if she had any comments regarding the entry options that have been presented. Ms. Mardesich answered that she has not seen the options. Commissioner Perestam asked Ms. Mardesich which trees are currently blocking her view. Ms. Mardesich indicated on the photograph the foliage to the right of the current residence. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 12 Chairman Tetreault noted that Ms. Mardesich had submitted pictures taken at night from her property, and asked Ms. Mardesich from where on her property the photos had been taken. Ms. Mardesich answered that the photos were taken from her living room and balcony, standing on the balcony. Mr. Rot=li (in rebuttal) did not feel the pictures are an accurate depiction of Ms. Mardesich's view. He explained that her living room is on the east side, not the west side. He explained that both he and his wife stood on Mrs. Mardesich's balcony and from the living room there is a huge harbor view all the way across. He noted that, as staff had indicated, there will only be a very small section of the view obstructed by his home. He also noted that the trees Mrs. Mardesich indicated on the west side of the property that are blocking her view are not on his property, but rather the property down below. He stated that any trees on his property that are blocking the view he will very willingly trim or remove. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Golida asked staff if they considered the living room as a viewing room. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the living room was considered as a viewing room. Commissioner Mueller asked staff to clarify the best and most important view that was determined in their analysis. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the scope of the view begins just east of the applicant's residence and includes the harbor and the L.A. basin, including city lights. Mr. Schonborn displayed a photograph showing the scope of the view. Commissioner Mueller understood the requirements and Guidelines regarding the best and most important view, however he noted that this proposed residence would be in the middle of the neighbor's view. He asked staff if there was any qualification in the Guidelines regarding the location of the obstruction. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the determination of significant view impairment is completely subjective, and although staff tends to factor whether an impairment is located in the middle of the view frame, staff also weighs that against how much of the view is being lost. He explained that although in this situation the impairment may appear to be in the middle of the view frame, it is already at the periphery of the protected view frame and the degree of view loss is low as compared to the total view. He also noted that staff determined that the loss is less that what is blocked by the tree in the neighbor's yard. He then read the section of the Guidelines regarding significant view impairment. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 13 Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they had looked at lowering the pitch of the roof and how that would impact the view. Associate Planner Schonborn felt that lowering the pitch from 4:12 to 3 1/2: 12 would be very minimal and result in a ridgeline that would only be a few inches lower. He also felt that lowering the grade at the garage would most likely cause a ripple effect in terms of other issues, including grading and retaining walls, and the need for a Variance. Commissioner Golida felt that there are two views that need to be looked at, the city lights view and the harbor view. He felt that allowing the construction as proposed would be taking away a small portion of a larger view as well as almost eliminating the city lights view. He therefore felt that the percentage of view lost is much greater than indicated in the staff report, as a significant portion of the city lights view. Furthermore, he noted that the neighbor can approach the City with a View Restoration application which would enhance their city lights view by eliminating the tree in the foreground of the picture. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the City's view finding requires the City to analyze view irrespective of foliage. He noted that in the night time photo there is a considerable amount of City lights view that is currently being blocked and the view extends to the west end of the residence. Therefore, staff felt there would only be a small area blocked by the proposed addition. Commissioner Mueller agreed with Commissioner Golida's comments in looking at the percentage of city lights view, and noticing there is a transition into the refinery area where the lights are not significant. He felt that if that view were to go away with the addition it would change the aspect of the view and how it appears at night, which is relatively important in terms of trying to understand the impacts on the neighbor. He stated that he was concerned that by approving a project of this size and the way it is situated with the addition on the east, it would be blocking the entire city lights view across the structure. He noted that the City cannot protect the view on the west portion of the property, but can consider alternatives to help preserve the view over the east portion of the property. He noted that this is a large addition going onto a lot that is one of the three or four smallest in the neighborhood. Commissioner Perestam felt that this house will have more of a presence in the neighborhood than anticipated. He felt that the house will have a significant visual impact and will look like a very large house on a very small lot. Vice Chairman Knight appreciated the neighbor's concern over losing some of the city lights view, however he noted that this only related to a nine foot section of the house, as the rest of the area is not a protected view as it is below 16 feet. He was not convinced that the little triangle being blocked is significant relative to the entire view. He also did not know what the solution would be in terms of architectural changes, but felt that lowering the roof pitch to 31/2: 12 would help. He agreed with staff that lowering Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 14 the front entrance would help reduce the bulky look of the project, but would be hesitant to choose one of the selections. He stated that the silhouette was not accurate, but noted that section is not being addressed in terms of view impact, and would not insist it be re -flagged. Chairman Tetreault discussed the view impact and the tree in the direct foreground of the photographs. He did not think the tree was a big impediment to the view potential of the neighbor's home. He discussed the "significant view" and that there is a considerable amount of discretion and subjectivity involved. He explained that he looks at it in terms of weighing the interests of one party to a view versus the interests of another party to remodel or develop their lot, and there has to be some give and take. He stated that the applicant is looking at a home on a property that they own and is proposing to almost triple the size of that home. Further, the neighbor has lived in her home for many years and enjoyed the city lights view. He explained that this neighbor will loose all of her city lights view to the west, however this is not a protected view and it is within the property owner's right to build to 16 feet in height in that area. He felt that the area to the east is where the Planning Commission has some discretion. He stated that given the size of the project and how much larger of a home that is requested and weighing the rights of the view of the neighbor across the street, he felt that the Planning Commission should try to protect as much of that view as possible. He noted that the applicant is building a very large home that is almost maximizing the allowed lot coverage, and when weighing the interests of others around the property, this is a concern. He felt that the applicant should consider what can be done to the design to minimize the impact on the view of the neighbor. Commissioner Karp noted that lowering the elevation of the home will cause more grading to occur as well as higher retaining walls. He felt that the current design allows for the neighbor to maintain a significant view. He did not think that the view being taken away is protected, and though losing a portion of the view is unfortunate, the applicant does have a right to improve their property. Commissioner Mueller asked if there was additional grading, could the garages on the east side be set back and the entire east end of the house would become shorter. He felt that if that were possible there may not be an issue with the view over the east side of the property. He felt that with some minor modifications and lowering the pitch of the roof that the house would not appear as large and bulky and would preserve the view over the east side. Vice Chairman Knight stated that lowering the roof pitch to 3:12 would still allow for a tile roof while lowering the roof by approximately 2 feet, and doing this would not involve any additional grading. Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing. Lou Roupoli understood and appreciated the concerns of the Planning Commission, however he felt it was important to get an accurate assessment of the view that is being Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 15 encroached upon. He did not felt the photographs presented an accurate picture of the view. He felt that it was important to get accurate pictures that show how much of the harbor view and light view is being obstructed to help the Planning Commission make their decision. Further, he asked that the architect be given more time to look at the design on the east side of the property to possibly come up with an alternative that will make the neighbor happy. He therefore asked for a continuance. Chairman Tetreault noted that he had been to Mrs. Mardesich's property to look at the view, and his opinions were formed from his site visit as well as the photographs. Commissioner Golida commented that most likely all of the Commissioners visited Mrs. Mardesich's property, however they were not able to see the view at night. He agreed that it would be a good idea to continue the item to get a better photograph of the city lights view and to allow the architect time to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Knight agreed, noting that the architect can also come back with a revised front entrance for the Commission to review. He therefore would support a continuance of the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault noted there is an action deadline for this project of November 15. Associate Planner Schonborn acknowledged the deadline, stating that in order to allow the continuance, the applicant will have to agree to a 90 -day extension, Commissioner Mueller agreed that it was also important for the architect to address alternatives to the front entrance to reduce the bulk and mass of the house. Mr. Roupoli requested a 90 -day extension for his project. He noted that his architect has requested a six-week extension to allow him time to consider alternative designs. Chairman Tetreault stated that Mr. Roupoli has heard the comments from the Planning Commission and asked if he or his architect had any questions. Mr. Roupoli stated that there have been comments made regarding the size of the house and wanted to note that he and his wife have five children and their goal was to allow the children their own bedrooms and a bathroom to share. Associate Planner Schonborn noted that in looking at possible future meeting dates, if the item is continued to December 13th staff would need to have the revised plans by the end of November, as well as a revised silhouette constructed. Mr. Roupoli stated that it was very expensive to have the silhouette constructed and certified and he was hoping that a new silhouette would not be necessary on the west side of the property. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 16 Director/Secretary Rojas acknowledged that in the past when something has been slightly modified it might be possible to use the existing silhouette. He stated that in the past the Planning Commission has been able to evaluate the changes with an existing silhouette, however based on the discussion, he felt that staff and the Planning Commission would need a revised silhouette to assess the view impact. Mr. Roupoli responded that he was hoping to leave the silhouette as it currently is and provide an accurate depiction of the view that is being affected. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam noted that the need for a revised silhouette would depend on the revised plans, and if the revision is not significant then the silhouette may not have to be revised. Chairman Tetreault stated that the need for a new silhouette would be within the discretion of the Planning Director. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed. Commissioner Karp stated he would like to see a section of the existing homeowner's property across the street and the applicant's property with elevations so that the Commission can have a better view of what is blocked. He felt it was very hard to look at the property under consideration and superimpose his thoughts on their balcony and tie the two together. Commissioner Mueller moved to continue the public hearing to December 13th to allow the applicant and architect to look at alternatives for the east end of the project which would serve to reduce the amount of view obstruction above 16 feet, and include, but not be limited to, articulation of the upper floor; change of the roof pitch; movement of the chimney if possible; repositioning of the ground floor; and look at the front entrance to reduce the mass, bulk, and height of the entrance from the street, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Vice Chairman Knight asked Commissioner Mueller if he would consider an amendment to require the retaining wall on the east side by the driveway be limited to 5 feet in height. Commissioner Mueller accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Karp. The motion was approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of October 11, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 17 Commissioner Karp noted a clarification on page 2 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Golida abstaining since he was absent from that meeting and Commissioner Karp abstaining from the vote on Agenda Item No. 3. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of November 8, 2005 Commissioner Karp noted that November 8th is election night and some of the Commissioners may have commitments regarding the election on that night. He suggested ending the meeting on that night no later than 11:00 p.m. Chairman Tetreault asked if there were any Commissioners who are anticipating not being able to attend the meeting on November 8th, Commissioners Mueller and Perestam stated they would be out of town that evening and Chairman Tetreault stated he had commitments on election night. Chairman Tetreault noted that he was not aware of Commissioner Gerstner's plans, but stated that if there is not a quorum he would try to make arrangements to attend the meeting with the understanding that the meeting be adjourned by 10:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Knight suggested continuing the View Restoration Guidelines and the Zone Text Amendment (Items 1 and 4) to the following meeting and hear the two Height Variation items (Items 2 and 3). Director/Secretary Rojas felt that would be a good idea. Commissioner Karp noted that he would be recusing himself from hearing Item No. 2, and if there are only 4 Commissioners at the meeting there would not be a quorum once he is recused. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed there would not be a quorum for Item No. 2. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2005 Page 18