Loading...
PC MINS 20070109 i Approved February 1 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 9, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knight at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Boy Scout Troup 128 led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Fox, Associate Planner Sohn, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to amend the Agenda to hear Item 7 after Item 1. COMMUNICATIONS Staff distributed items of correspondence for the various agenda items. Commissioner Tetreault reported that he met with the applicant for Agenda Item No. 6 and Commissioner Lewis reported that he met with the applicant for Agenda Item No. 6, with Bob Nelson for Agenda Item No. 2, the appellant on Agenda Item No. 3, and a neighbor for Agenda Item No. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Variance and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2003-00611): 30042 Avenida Tranquila The Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2007-01 as presented thereby approving the requested after-the-fact Variance and Grading Permit, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00159): 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. The Planning Commission unanimously accepted the withdrawal of the application. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, coastal Permit, Variance, Environmental Assessment, Grading Permit and Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00536 and SUB2005-00536 et al): Nantasket Drive Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining that staff continues to believe the proposed development is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. She also explained that staff has reevaluated the slopes for lots 1 and 2 and have determined they no longer need Height Variation applications. She stated that staff was asking the Planning Commission to discuss the additional information requested and make a determination as to whether or not to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Director Rojas added that staff has always analyzed this project as a residential project. He stated that there were some legitimate questions at the last meeting as to what is the by-right height and what is the impact above that line. He stated that in trying to answer that question staff realized this is a still a commercial recreational property and the lots technically do not have the residential by-right height standard. He explained that there is a difference in the way 16 feet is measured for commercial recreational and residential buildings, and therefore there would be different impacts to the neighborhood. He explained that because the applicant is proposing a residential development, staff is reviewing the proposed project under residential standards. He noted, however, that staff cannot ignore the fact that the applicant is requesting a zone change from commercial to residential and staff is seeking direction on whether the Planning Commission wishes to assess the impacts of the project using the commercial "by right" height limit. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff if it would then be more logical for the Planning Commission to first decide whether or not the zoning on the property should be changed from commercial recreational to residential. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page2 Director Rojas answered that once a decision is made on the land use there will be no doubt that this will be a residential project. He noted, however, that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council will ultimately make the decision. Commissioner Tetreault asked which project would result in a lesser view impact to the surrounding residents,a residential project or a commercial recreational project. Director Rojas explained that because of the way height is measured in residential and commercial recreational applications, a commercial recreational application would most likely result in a lower building than what is currently being proposed. Commissioner Tetreault questioned staff regarding the lot size of the lots used in the staff report for Channelview Court, and asked if these lot sizes were accurate. Associate Planner Sohn answered that the numbers used were taken from the tract map, but she would verify those numbers. Chairman Knight asked if the apartments are on one parcel or three parcels: Associate Planner Sohn answered that the apartments are placed over five parcels. Director Rojas added that there is a recorded map which shows multiple parcels. He explained that the applicant feels it is one parcel, however staff feels it is a moot point as pursuant to the City Attorney's direction that since the view is defined from a structure the view is analyzed from the three structures, regardless of how many parcels the three structures are on. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Dan Bolton, Bolton Engineering 707 Silver Spur Road, stated he has measured the heights from the high point of the existing structure. He stated that he has submitted a letter, which is included in the Planning Commission packets, which provides substantiation for some of the material provided by Mr. Ireland. Chairman Knight asked if the chimneys were used in the analysis. Mr. Bolton answered that he used just the silhouette to conduct the analysis. Commissioner Karp noted that the green on the photograph represents height by right, and asked if that was from the existing grade or proposed grade. Mr. Bolton answered that was the height by right as defined by the Code, and was measured from existing grade. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page3 Dana Ireland, 1 Seacove Drive, (applicant) discussed the outstanding issues before the Planning Commission. He stated that based on the revised neighborhood compatibility analysis, staff has taken a total of 33 residential structures that are near the subject site, and the average size is now 11,903 feet. He performed his own analysis, using the twenty closest RS-4 structures surrounding the property, noting that the average size is now 16,500 square feet. He felt his proposed homes were more than compatible with the size of the 20 nearest RS-4 homes. He discussed the fill needed and the height of the proposed homes. He stated that he can demonstrate and has demonstrated that the grading of the lot is not impacting the height of the homes. He discussed the Height Variation and showed slides of the view impacts taken from the street. He discussed The Villas and showed a slide demonstrating that they are on one lot with a single APN. He showed several slides where a silhouette of the future hotel and casitas at the Terranea property will be and how the views will be obstructed by those structures. Commissioner Karp asked, given the money the applicant will have to pay to the City to meet his low cost housing requirement, it would be better to build four houses rather than five. Mr. Ireland answered that he still plans to build five and explained that he has spoken to the developers for the Crestridge project and they have agreed with him contributing money to their project to provide affordable housing. Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court reminded the Planning Commission that the apartments are zone single-family residential. He felt that the Planning Commission is accommodating a developer by amending the General Plan, approving a zone change, approving a Variance, approving a Height Variation, and the many other applications necessary to approve this project. Michael Woodward 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles (attorney representing The Villas Apartments), presented a letter asking the Planning Commission to consider a continuance since the silhouette poles had blown down and contained a discussion on slope and grading. He also noted that he did not have the agenda or staff report available until Monday. He asked that a further compatibility analysis be done to include bulk and mass, lot coverage, open space between structures, roof design, and setbacks. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Woodward if he had any response to Mr. Bolton's presentation in regards to the heights and grading. Mr. Woodward answered that he did not think the material presented by Mr. Bolton was applicable under the City regulations. Michael Lamonte, Pacific Property Company 2600 Michaelson Avenue, Irvine, stated that while the photographs shown by Mr. Ireland were taken from the property, they were not taken from inside the actual units. He agreed that before any decisions are made the poles that are currently down should be put back up. He did not think that the Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page4 sizes of the houses should be compared with the sizes of the apartments when considering neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Lamonte if he felt the Terranea development would obstruct the views from the Villa Apartments with or without the proposed five homes being built. Mr. Lamonte did not think the Terranea development would block views, as it is at a greater distance from the apartment complex. Suzanne Wright 6430 Seacove Drive did not think The Villas should be included in considering neighborhood compatibility, noting The Villas do not conform and were grandfathered in when the City incorporated. She noted that the homes on Seacove Drive have not been considered in neighborhood compatibility even though they are as close as the homes on Seabluff Drive. She stated that by the very fact that the poles had to be painted to differentiate between the lot shows that the houses are too close together and there is not enough open space between the homes. She felt that the slope and grade analysis was flawed, noting that five lots do not exist. She requested that the letter she emailed be included in the record. Elsa Ettaker 6504 Via Baron objected to the proposed development stating that it is too much and too big. Dana Ireland (in rebuttal) stated that he has asked to be able to take pictures from inside the apartments and has been denied access by the apartment management. He stated that his proposed houses meet the City setback requirements. He stated that the silhouettes have been up since July and did not think it was necessary for a continuance because the poles have been down for about a week. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:50 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:00 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (con't) Chairman Knight asked staff if there was any percentage of view blockage that staff looked at before considering the blockage as significant. Director Rojas explained that there is no set quantitative formula for determining significant view impairment. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page5 Commissioner Perestam discussed the neighborhood compatibility analysis, stating that the apartments are there and are part of the community and therefore an important part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the Code says that when looking at neighborhood compatibility it should be done with homes in the same zoning district. He stated that while the apartments may be in the same zoning but they are not built to match their zoning. He questioned if it was reasonable to compare these proposed homes to the apartments in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He explained that when looking at neighborhood compatibility he looks at What the public will see when in the neighborhood. He did not think anyone would equate a large apartment complex on one side of the street with single-family homes on the other side of the street. He discussed the homes on Seacove Drive which are zoned RS-1 and are large homes on large lots, while this project is large homes on smaller lots. He did not think that the average citizen, however, would note that the Seacove homes are zoned RS-1 and therefore not considered in neighborhood compatibility. He felt that the appropriate areas to consider in neighborhood compatibility would be the homes in the Channelview Court/ Beachview Drive area and the homes in the Seacove area and exclude The Villas Apartments. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Tetreault, however he noted that home size is only one factor when considering neighborhood compatibility. He therefore felt that the new analysis done by staff should be used in considering neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Karp could not ignore The Villas Apartments, as they are there and impact what is going on in the neighborhood and should be included in the analysis. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Lewis agreed with comments made by Commissioner Tetreault. He did not think the current numbers presented by staff help resolve the issues and did not think the prior numbers help resolve the issues. He felt that the issues will be resolved by the Planning Commissioners individual experiences and points of view, which are subjective. He felt that the apartments be excluded from the analysis. Chairman Knight agreed that the apartments should be excluded from the analysis, as he did not think they are an appropriate comparison to a single-family home, and was not the intent of neighborhood compatibility to compare single-family homes to apartment buildings. He also did not think it was appropriate to include the Seacove homes, as they are in a different zone. He felt the appropriate analysis would be the September 14 h staff analysis. He stated that he would like the City Attorney's opinion on this subject. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page6 Commissioner Perestam discussed whether to apply the CR or RS-4 zoning when discussing the 16-foot by-right height. He stated that a prior meeting the Planning Commission had voted to support the zoning change, and because of that he has always viewed this as an RS-4 project. Commissioner Tetreault also recalled that the Planning Commission had voted to accept the proposed zone change and therefore, if the project is going to be zoned as an RS-4, it should be treated as an RS-4. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed, adding that if the project is going to be zone RS-4 it has to be analyzed as an RS-4 project. He stated that the zoning should follow the analysis and the analysis should follow the zoning. Commissioners Karp, Ruttenberg, Lewis, and Chairman Knight all agreed. Commissioner Tetreault stated that there are many questions that are still outstanding in his mind regarding this project that need to be clarified by staff. He asked if it would be more efficient to continue the item at this time and ask for clarification rather than carrying on the discussion at this meeting for several hours and coming to the conclusion that the item needs to be continued. Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's idea that a straw poll should be taken to determine whether or not to continue the item, however he felt he had enough information at this time to make a decision. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that there were members of the audience that have pointed out that the staff report was posted late and they may have not had adequate time to address it and the silhouette has been down. He therefore did not think it was fair to some of the people who appeared before the Planning Commission to make a decision at this meeting. Commissioner Karp was in favor of following the staff recommendation of denying the proposed Grading Permit and Height Variation and approving the other applications. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the silhouette has been up for quite some time and he was comfortable in voting on this project at this meeting. He felt the Commission should make a decision on the zone change and General Plan Amendment, however he would like to have clarification on the Height Variation and Grading Permit. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the findings as to whether lots 1 through 3 are sloping lots or pad lots, and noted that Bolton Engineering as made a determination however another engineering firm may have a different opinion. He felt that as much investigating and fact finding that the Planning Commission can do will be a benefit to the City Council when they look at this application. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Pagel Commissioner Perestam stated he would like to know when the permits for Terranea will be issued and the City Attorney's opinion on the slope for lots 1 through 3 and the neighborhood compatibility issue. Therefore, he would like to have that information before making a decision. Chairman Knight also had questions on whether or not to include the apartments in the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He would like to see the item continued to have all of the questions answered to get a clearer picture. Commissioner Perestam moved to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2007 to get clarification, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Lewis stated that he is very disappointed that the owner at 6619 Beachview Drive has not allowed staff into his unit for view analysis, and if this has not happened by the March 13th meeting he will take a very negative inference from that. Director Rojas felt it would be helpful to staff and the public to have a second motion or to amend the current motion to give a position on the issues of the neighborhood compatibility analysis and view issues. Commissioner Perestam withdrew his previous motion. Commissioner Tetreault made a substitute motion that, assuming the public hearing is continued, that between now and two weeks from that date the silhouettes be re-erected on the property to their previous condition and that the RS-4 standards will be used for the Height Variation, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Tetreault moved that, assuming that the public hearing is continued, the neighborhood compatibility analysis will include the homes on Channelview Court, Via Baron, Beachview Court, and Seacove Drive, but not The Villas Apartments, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Karp stated that the apartments exist and must be taken into account. Commissioner Perestam was not sure this needed to be included in the motion, as input from the City Attorney has been requested on this subject. He also did not think that whatever was decided would be reflective of what the Commissioners' opinion would be for the overall project. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Perestam, noting this area is very familiar to the Planning Commissioners and he did not think this motion was necessary one way or the other. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page8 Chairman Knight agreed the apartment buildings should not be included, but did not agree that the Seacove Drive homes should be included as they are in a different zoning district. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that neighborhood compatibility is looked at for more than a square footage analysis, as there are many more characteristics that come into play. He also stated that the Planning Commissioners have to make subjective judgments about how important or unimportant that particular piece of property is to the one being evaluated. Therefore, if he were not sure, he would want inclusion and not exclusion of some piece of information in'the analysis. Therefore, he could not support the motion. The motion failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Karp, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2007, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Tetreault offered a substitution motion to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2007 and to direct staff to consult with the City Attorney on the issue of including the Seacove homes and The Villas Apartments in the neighborhood compatibility analysis, seconded by Chairman Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg withdrew his motion. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 3. Appeal of Site Plan Review Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00370): 58 Avenida Corona Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report giving a history of the project and the reasons for the appeal. She stated that staff did not feel the appeal was warranted and was recommending denial of the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to approve the Site Plan Review. Commissioner Lewis asked staff to clarify their recommendation for the two trees. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff was recommending the removal of the two ficus trees in the front yard, as they significantly impair the view from 4 La Vista Verde. She stated that removal was recommended because trimming and/or lacing the trees would not be effective. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page9 Commissioner Lewis asked if it would be in the purview of the Planning Commission to assess whether or not the ficus trees cause a significant view impairment to 4 La Vista Verde. Director Rojas answered that because this is an appeal of a decision the Planning Commission can reassess the action on the ficus trees. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Paul Matthews 57 Avenida Corona (appellant) stated that the silhouette of the new home indicates that he will be losing a view he has had for 49 years. He stated that the house in question is not a rebuild of an existing house, but rather a new house, as it is 400 feet larger, the floor has been raised 18 inches, and the attic has been enlarged to accommodate a tile roof. He did not think the design of the new house would be compatible with the neighborhood. He asked that the height of the new home be kept to a reasonable height so that his view is not impacted. Jerry Rodin 29000 Western Ave (architect) questioned why this appeal was considered and allowed. He felt the appeal was not valid, noting that the appeal was accepted because of neighborhood compatibility when in actuality the appeal was based on view impairment. He stated that the structure is within the "by right" height limits and therefore is not appealable. He explained that the building has to be torn down and rebuilt because of a major fire within the structure. He stated that he has not raised the building and is adhering to the existing finished floor of the existing garage and dwelling. He stated that any changes made are due to updating the house to make it Code compliant, which he must do for the Building Department. Krista Johnson 58 Avenida Corona (applicant) stated that she has a report from an arborist that says the tree to the right of the structure can be trimmed and laced rather than removed, as she does not want to take out any of her trees unnecessarily. She stated that she would be happy to take out the middle tree and keep the tree to the right laced and trimmed. Mark Mascola 42 Avenida Corona supported the applicant's proposed residence and felt that it was compatible with the neighborhood. Barry Hildebrand asked that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and approve the Site Plan Review to allow the Johnson's to start rebuilding their new home. Paul Matthews (in rebuttal) asked for clarification as to whether the new floor is at ground level or not, and if so, are the flags of the silhouette properly placed. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they had received the arborist report on the tree and if that affected their decision on whether or not to remove the tree. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page10 Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff had received the arborist's report and explained that the decision to recommend removal of the tree was based on staff's site visit and analysis of the view. Director Rojas added that there is no disagreement that the tree can be laced and trimmed, the issue is whether the tree can be laced to a degree that the view would be restored and no longer significantly impair the view. He noted that the arborist stated the tree could be laced to improve the view, however staff does not know if the arborist is familiar with the City's criteria for assessing view impacts. Commissioner Lewis felt that the grounds of appeal were frivolous and his only concern was the tree and the issue of lacing versus removal. He stated that at this time he would support staff's recommendation with additional language regarding idling trucks during construction and that the appeal is frivolous, has caused undo delay and financial injury, and is not warranted. Commissioner Ruttenberg sympathized with the Matthews in the sense that they have had a beautiful view for a long time, however it is not a protected view. He stated that the Johnson's have a right to build up to 16 feet and did not think there was a basis for the appeal. He agreed that language should be added about the idling trucks, but did not agree with the additional language suggested by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Karp and Vice Chairman Gerstner also agreed that there is no basis for the appeal and supported staff's recommendations. Commissioner Tetreault appreciated Mr. Rodin's explanation as to why the house will have to be built a little higher because of Code compliance, and while sympathizing with the Matthews, agreed that there is no basis for the appeal and supported staff's recommendations. Commissioner Perestam also agreed with staff's recommendations. He felt that lacing the tree in question may be sufficient, as there appear to be other trees behind it that will continue to impact the view. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he did not look at the trees when he was at the site, and to make a decision on the trees he felt that he should make a site visit and look at the view from the view holders home. He felt that because he has not done that he cannot make a decision on the trees at this time, but he does not want to hold up the construction of the house because of the trees. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed, noting that these trees should be looked at in the same way trees and views are reviewed in a View Restoration case. Commissioner Perestam moved to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's decision with the amendment to Condition No. 13 to remove the left Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Pagel1 ficus tree and lace the carob tree to the right, and also add language to the construction hours regarding idling trucks, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if there were a way to allow the applicant to submit the plans to the Building Department to start the process of plan check while the Planning Commission decide what to do about the trees, since the Planning Commission is not questioning the building itself. Director Rojas answered that since the appellant can appeal the decision to the City Council, the plans cannot yet be submitted to Building and Safety. He felt, however, that since this is a unique situation, that he could see allowing the applicant to submit plans to plan check provided an agreement is signed by the applicant acknowledging the risks an appeal is filed. Commissioner Karp stated that the trees have been in place for many years without any complaints from the neighbors, and noted that the resident whose view is blocked has not even contacted the City in regards to this application. He felt that the Planning Commission was making a problem where one did not exist in regards to these trees. Director Rojas noted that the property owner with the view impairment did send in a letter in opposition to the project, but not mentioning the trees, only the structure. The Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2007-02 thereby denying the appeal, as amended (5-0-2) with Commissioner Tetreault and Vice Chairman Gerstner abstaining. 4. Coastal Permit, Height Variation, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006- 00168): 13 Sea Cove Drive Associate Planner Fox noted that the applicant has requested a continuance for this item. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Tino Khvang13 Sea Cove Drive (applicant) questioned why staff was considering his home as a three-story home. He asked that a discussion of how a story is determined be included in the staff report. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to the March 13, 2007 meeting. 5. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00505): 28045 Ella Road It being after 11:00 P.M. Commissioner Lewis moved to suspend the Planning Commission rules and allow consideration of Item 5, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6-1) with Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page12 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to suspend the Planning Commission rules and also hear Item No. 6 after Item No. 5, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Karp and Vice Chairman Gerstner dissenting. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a history of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He explained the scope of the project and noted that staff was concerned with the structure size and apparent bulk and mass of the project. Therefore, staff was recommending denial of the project without prejudice. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the Table on page 7 of the staff report and questioned the square footage of the home at 28070 Ella Road, which is a two-story home that he believes is a remodel. He asked staff, if this item is continued, to further research the square footage of that home, as it looks substantially larger than what is listed on the Table. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Jerry Rodin 29000 Western Avenue (architect) discussed the view issue, noting that many letters of opposition should be moot as the view blocked is because of the 16-foot by right structure. He felt the Mediterranean style of the house is compatible with the neighborhood, pointing out that other Mediterranean style homes can be seen from this property. He noted that this is the largest lot in the neighborhood and that the house is only utilizing 24 percent of the lot. He explained that the problem is with the soils on the lot and the geologist has recommended staying within the existing footprint of the house, which is why he chose to build up rather than out. Eric Nazamian 28045 Ella Road noted that all but one letter of opposition is from homes on streets other than Ella Road and questioned how genuine their personal dissatisfaction is of the project as opposed to supporting the concerns of one or two neighbors. Glenda Urmacher 28039 Ella Road referred to the Table on page 7of the staff report and felt the numbers were incorrect because they include the two-car garages. She also disputed the issue of the view and where the view was taken from at her residence, and distributed pictures taken from her home. She felt that the proposed project is too massive and changes the entire ambiance of the neighborhood. She felt that the proposed project greatly impacts her privacy, as she felt that from the second story the applicant will be able to look directly into the entire southern section of her home. Lindly Ruddock 28042 Acana Road supported the staff's recommendation of denial as he felt the house would be too large and therefore incompatible with the neighborhood. He also felt that the two-story Mediterranean style home is compatible with the surrounding single-story ranch style homes. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page13 Louise Lalande 28031 Acana Road stated that the silhouette blocks her ocean and sunset views. She also felt the home was too large for the lot and incompatible with the neighborhood. Jerry Rodin (in rebuttal) stated that this project can easily be turned into a ranch style home if need be. He stated again that the concerns over view blockage are from the 16-foot by right section of the home. He stated that he would be willing to have opaque windows or even eliminate windows on the neighbors side of the house if she is still concerned with privacy. Commissioner Lewis asked if there are any design changes that can be made to address the concerns of the apparent mass and bulk of the home. Mr. Rodin answered that there are changes that can be made to address the issue of mass and bulk. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the fact that this is a Mediterranean style home play a role in staff's conclusion that the house is not compatible with the neighborhood. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that architectural style was a factor in staff's determination that the house is not compatible with the neighborhood, though it was not the main issue. Commissioner Karp noted that many of the speakers indicated they have lived in the neighborhood for many years. He stated that properties change over time as do the needs of the property owners, and houses are constantly getting bigger. He asked what makes a larger home wrong. Vice Chairman Gerstner respected what the architect has done, however he felt that the house looks every inch of the proposed square footage. He agreed that neighborhood can evolve, but more slowly than this proposed addition. He felt that this proposed addition will not appear like any other house in the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault noted that this will not be the only two-story home in the immediate neighborhood and therefore it would not be completely incompatible with the neighborhood. He was still undecided on the bulk and mass of the house. Commissioner Perestam felt that the increase in size and bulk and mass of this house would be overwhelming. He felt the house shows it's size in this instance. He noted that he is not opposed to a second story on the home, he just felt there was too much of it at this point in time. Chairman Knight agreed that the house does not hide its square footage and is quite massive. He agreed with the staff report in the comments that it is not compatible with Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page14 the neighborhood in terms of its scale and bulk and mass. He also agreed with the staff report that the view impact is all 16 feet and below and is not a protected view. Therefore, he is currently not in favor of the proposed project. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Chairman Knight asked the applicant if he would be willing to grant a 90-day extension per the Permit Streamling Act. Jerry Rodin stated that he would be willing to grant a 90-day extension. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2007 to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the staff's concerns of size, mass, and bulk, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Director Rojas asked if the Planning Commission would like to have the project re- silhouetted. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the revised project should be re- silhouetted. The motion to continue was approved, (7-0). 6. Appeal of Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit (Case No. ZON2006-0048): 5962 Flambeau Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explained the appeal, and noted that staff was recommending denial of the appeal and to uphold the Director's decision, however modify the Conditions of Approval to reflect that the maximum height of the wall be limited to 5 feet. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they made the determination that this wall is significantly impairing the City lights view. Director Rojas answered that staff has determined that the City lights view is significantly impaired by a 6-foot wall, which is why staff is recommending that the wall be limited to 5 feet. He explained that the Planning Commission can disagree and say that the amount of impairment is not significant and leave the wall at 6 feet in height. Chairman Knight asked if plants could be planted to provide for privacy. Director Rojas answered that plants can be planted as long as they don't grow into a hedge that significantly impairs the view. He said a condition can be added that if a hedge is planted it cannot exceed the top of the five-foot wall. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page15 Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Neil Koch 27767 Hawthorne Blvd (appellant) explained that he has volunteered to pay for a clear wall on the neighbor's property so that he does not lose his view. He showed pictures taken from inside his home demonstrating that he cannot see into the applicant's home or yard. Scott Peppard 5962 Flambeau Road explained that since the Kochs have taken down their portion of the wall he has had trash-and debris in his yard. He stated that his privacy is gone and that the Kochs can stand in their yard and look into his kitchen, bathroom, and family room. He stated that he is in agreement with the staff report and its recommendations. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Peppard if he objected to the Kochs' rebuilding their wall. Mr. Peppard answered that he did not have an objection to the Kochs' rebuilding their wall, however he did not want to see the glass wall, as it created a privacy issue. Richard Bell 5968 Flambeau Road stated that he supports Mr. Peppard and added that there is also a privacy issue from his yard. Chris Stafford 27739 Hawthorne Blvd supported staff recommendations. Bernard Stafford 27739 Hawthorne Blvd also supported staff's recommendations. Juvenil Jovette 27773 Hawthorne Blvd stated he opposed the wall, noting that he did not think it was a privacy issue only an infringement of their freedom to enjoy the view of the City lights. He felt that his view might also be blocked if the wall were allowed to be built. Laura Mueller 5956 Flambeau Road felt it very much is a privacy issue, noting that they can look directly into her yard and her dining room. Neil Koch (in rebuttal) apologized for any trash that may have been in his neighbor's yard during construction. He did not think privacy is an issue, he only wants to enjoy his yard and view. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked if there is a Code regarding rear property walls and how high they can be built. Director Rojas explained that in most circumstances a rear property wall can be built to six feet in height, however the Code also has provisions that when there are lots at Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Page16 different elevations such as the properties involved, a wall may be subject to a Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit to make sure the wall does not block a view. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked, absent of a view issue, if there would be a basis for denying permission for the wall in this instance. Director Rojas answered that absent of the view issue, there would be no basis to deny the request for a six-foot wall. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the neighbor on Hawthorne Blvd. expressed a concern that this wall might also block his view, and asked staff if they had looked at the view from his property. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff had not looked at the view from the neighboring property. Director Rojas noted the wall the applicant is proposing is a common wall with the appellant and that none of the adjacent neighbors had raised the issue with staff that this wall may impair their view of the City lights. Vice Chairman Gerstner explained that there have been a few View Restoration cases in the past where the Planning Commission has required an upslope property put something up to help protect the privacy of a neighboring property. He disagreed with that, as he felt privacy was something that should be controlled by the property owner, and he did not think it should be the responsibility of the uphill neighbor to protect the privacy of the downhill neighbor. Further, he felt the downhill neighbor should be allowed to build a wall to protect his privacy to the extent it doesn't block a view. In this case staff has determined that a five-foot wall will not block a view and he felt it should be approved. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was at the appellant's property and could fully appreciate the difference it makes having a wall and not having a wall, and understood and sympathized with the situation. However, he felt that staff's analysis is correct per the Development Code and how it was applied in this situation, and as much as staff and the Planning Commission would like to come up with some type of compromise, they cannot forge compromises and impose them upon people. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-03 thereby approving staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Chairman Knight moved to amend the motion to include language that the applicant has the ability to grow vegetation on the hillside as long as it does not exceed the height of the five-foot wall, seconded by Commissioner Karp. The amended motion was approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Pagel? NEW BUSINESS 8. Minutes of November 28, 2006 The minutes were automatically continued to the January 23, 2007 meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of January 23, 2007 No comments on the pre-agenda ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:46 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2007 Pagel8