Loading...
PC MINS 20070313 Appr ed May 8, 20 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Chairman Gerstner 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 Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas congratulated Chairman Gerstner on being appointed Chairman on March 6, 2007. He also reported that on March 6t", the City Council continued to discuss the cargo container issue, discussed the Trump flagpole item, and initiated a code amendment to encourage "green building" construction. Director Rojas also distributed correspondence for Agenda Item No. 3, Agenda Item No. 4, Agenda item No. 6, and Agenda Item No. 7. The Commission also agreed to accept late correspondence for Agenda Items 2, 3, and 4. Commissioner Knight reported that he met with the applicant and Homeowners Association representatives for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioners Tetreault and Karp reported that they both had conversations with the applicant for Agenda Item No 4. Commissioner Ruttenberg reported that he spoke to the appellant for Agenda Item No. 7. 1. SELECTION OF A VICE-CHAIRMAN Commissioner Perestam was selected to be the Vice Chairman. It was clarified later in the meeting that the vote was unanimous. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) NONE CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. Zon2006-00505): 28045 Ella Road Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to March 27, 2007, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). 3. Coastal Permit, Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006- 00168): 13 Seacove Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, reviewing the scope of the project and the need for the various permits. He stated that staff felt the proposed project significantly impairs the view from the vacant lot located on Clipper Road. Staff also felt that the proposed project would result in significant cumulative view impairment, including the view of Catalina Island if similar.projects were proposed for nearby properties at 11, 15, and 17 Seacove Drive. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he explained that staff was concerned this was a proposed three story residence in a neighborhood of predominately two-story homes. He also noted that staff was concerned with privacy infringement to the abutting residences at 11 and 15 Seacove Drive. Therefore, staff was recommending denial of the project, with prejudice. Commissioner Knight asked staff why they were recommending the denial with prejudice. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff's concern is that even if the privacy issues and bulk and mass issues were addressed with changes in the design, staff was concerned that any proposal to add another story to this house will result in insignificant view impairment from the lot on Clipper Road. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if bulk and mass is looked at from the public right- of-way, or if it can also be considered from private properties. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 2 Director Rojas answered that this issue was clarified at a joint meeting with the City Council and it was determined that when looking at bulk and mass it shouldn't just be limited to the public right-of-way, but also how the project will be perceived from adjoining properties. He noted, however, that preference is given to the view from the public right-of-way since that is where the most people will see the project. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Ting Khvang 13 Seacove Drive (applicant) stated that the vacant lot on Clipper Drive is at a much higher elevation than his lot on Seacove Drive. He showed photographs taken from the vacant lot to show the views over his lot. He did not feel his proposed construction blocked the view from the primary viewing area of the vacant lot. In terms of bulk and mass, he felt the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood, and is not setting any precedent, noting that a Height Variation for 15 Seacove Drive was previously approved. He pointed out two other three-story homes in the neighborhood, however noted that staff did not consider these homes to be in his immediate neighborhood, which he disagrees with. He stated that he can make numerous changes to the currently proposed home to make the home more appealing to the residents at 15 Seacove Drive. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Khvang to point out the homes that he felt were more appropriate to be considered in his immediate neighborhood. Mr. Khvang answered that he would use the community as a whole. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the currently proposed home would be the second largest home in the neighborhood on one of the smallest lots, and asked Mr. Khvang to comment on that. Mr. Khvang responded that this proposed addition would still keep the lot coverage under the 50 percent threshold. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the large vacant lot on Clipper Drive, and asked staff how they determined where the best view will be on that lot. Associate Planner Fox explained that the view staff chose was the one staff felt was more likely to remain in the longer term than the view down the street. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the only property from which a view could be impaired would be the vacant lot on Clipper Drive. He noted it is a large lot, and if anyone is going to build on it they will take into consideration what is around it, and build something to minimize any view impact. However, regarding cumulative view impact, he felt this was difficult to avoid. He stated that when driving in the neighborhood he did Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 3 not see any other three-story homes, and felt this proposed addition would be introducing a new design element to the neighborhood that would not be compatible. Commissioner Karp agreed that a three-story house did not belong in the neighborhood and that there would be a cumulative view impact. He therefore could not support the project as currently proposed. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that there would have to be only slight adjustments made to any house built on the vacant lot on Clipper Drive to avoid view impacts and cumulative view issues from this proposed house. He also stated that he does not look at the house as two-story or three-story, but rather if the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that his concern was more the overall size of this proposed residence in regards to the size of the lot. He stated that this also can be modified, and was in favor of continuing the public hearing to allow the applicant to modify his addition. He stated he was not in favor of denying this with prejudice based on the view issue, as he didn't think the view was the key issue. Commissioner Lewis stated that there was not enough information in front of him to conclude there was a significant view impairment. However, he could not support a three-story project in this neighborhood and would therefore support staffs recommendation to deny with prejudice. He added that he was not currently in favor of recommending a continuance of the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg added that it would not be fair to vote this project down based on neighborhood compatibility, given that they were not even comparing the 20 closest homes. He didn't know if some of the homes not included in the neighborhood compatibility analysis, which are closer to the project, are three-story or are as large in mass and bulk and the proposed project. He stated he would like to know this before voting to deny the project. Chairman Gerstner disagreed with staff regarding denying with prejudice, as he felt the project could be redesigned without the third story. Vice Chairman Perestam did not think view was an issue with this project. He felt that privacy was a valid issue, however, but felt it could be mitigated with a redesign. He couldn't say that a third story was incompatible with the neighborhood, but felt that work needed to be done on the design before he could support the project. He also didn't agree with the staff recommendation of denial with prejudice. Commissioner Knight stated that he could not support the project, noting that he felt the cumulative view impact from this project would be significant. He also did not think the third story element was compatible with the neighborhood. He also felt there were privacy issues that needed to be addressed. He added that he did not feel it would be necessary to deny the project with prejudice if the applicant felt he could redesign the project to address the Commission's concerns. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 4 Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt the staffs recommendation to deny the project, with the modification to deny it without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg reiterated that he would like to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project, rather than deny the project. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he could not support a three-story home in this neighborhood and that perhaps the Planning Commission should hear from the applicant to see if he will be able to redesign this project to eliminate the three story element. Chairman Gerstner agreed, and re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Khvang stated that it has taken over a year to develop the plans that are before the Planning Commission. He explained that to expand out rather than up would take up his side yard area, making his home very close to his neighbor's homes. He also stated that to go outside of the original footprint of the home will bring the cost of the project substantially higher. He also felt that this design is more of a split level home rather than a three-story, noting that the storage area is being proposed below ground level. He stated that he would be willing to look at the design to see if there could be modifications made, and asked for clarification on what is considered a third floor and if that was looked at in reviewing neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Gerstner closed the public hearing. Associate Planner Fox explained that the third story is one of the elements staff looks at when evaluating neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Tetreault offered a substitute motion to continue the public hearing to April 10, 2007, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his previous motion, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they could include data in the next staff report which includes the other houses in the neighborhood that were not included in this analysis. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff can do an alternative analysis which will identify the homes that are the closest to the proposed project. Director Rojas asked the Commission if they were requiring the applicant to re- silhouette the project as part of the requested redesign. Commissioners Lewis and Tetreault were satisfied that a re-silhouette would not be necessary. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 5 Commissioner Knight felt that the project should be re-silhouetted to accurately determine the impact of the project. Chairman Gerstner suggested requesting the project be re-silhouetted but not make it a requirement. Commissioner Tetreault moved to amend the motion to continue the public hearing to April 10, 2007 and suggest the project be re-silhouetted, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Karp and Chairman Gerstner dissenting. 4. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Coastal Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Variance, Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00536 & SUB2005-00006): Nantasket Drive Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, reviewing the history of the project before the Planning Commission. She explained that staff was still not able to make all of the necessary findings to approve the proposed Height Variation and Grading application. She stated that staff was requesting the Planning Commission review the opinion of the City Attorney regarding the appropriate neighborhood compatibility analysis, identify the proposed project's immediate neighborhood and if the project is compatible with that neighborhood; determine whether the proposed residences on lots 3, 4, and 5 create significant view impact to surrounding property; and lastly, if all outstanding issues are addressed to the Planning Commission's satisfaction, forward a recommendation to the proposed land use and construction to the City Council. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the only reason they were not recommending approval of the Grading Permit was because of neighborhood compatibility and view issues. Associate Planner Sohn answered that was correct. Commissioner Karp asked, if the Villa Apartments are not part of neighborhood compatibility, then how can apartment 45 be used as a point to analyze a view. Director Rojas explained that the City Attorney determined that because of the height variation finding that views are to be protected from adjoining structures, the apartment building is a structure and therefore the unit with the best and most important view should be protected. He stated there is also a separate issue regarding compatibility, and the City Attorney felt that since the apartments are multi-family but zoned single family, the Commission can agree to include them or not. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the units on the first floor of the apartment building will have their views impaired by this proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 6 Associate Planner Sohn answered that the units on the first floor will have their views impaired by the portion of the structures under 16 feet in height. Commissioner Knight stated that he had received an email from a resident containing the assessor's map for the Channelview and Beachview Court areas, which seems to be slightly different than the tract map. He asked staff which map should be used in this situation. Associate Planner Sohn answered that there are cases where the assessors map and tract map are slightly different, and that the tract map is the one that should be used. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Dana Ireland 1 Seacove Drive (applicant) discussed neighborhood compatibility, noting the City Attorney has determined that the twenty nearest neighborhood structures to the project trump the zoning requirements of the area. Therefore, the Planning Commission has the flexibility to look at the twenty closest residential structures, and noted that the average size structure for those twenty closest structures is approximately 18,000 square feet. He also showed several slides of homes in the neighborhood to demonstrate neighborhood compatibility and bulk and mass issues. Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court reminded the Planning Commission that there has not been one public speaker in the many meetings that has spoken in favor of this proposed project. He noted that staff has continually pointed out problems with this project. He felt this project would be creating a row of mansions in a neighborhood where there currently are no mansions. Bob Kennis 2600 Michelson Drive, Irvine, representing Pacific Properties which owns the Villa Apartments. He stated that his interest in this project is economic, and that these economic interests are significantly impacted by this project. He stated that there is more than one unit that will be impacted by this proposed project, rather there are many units that will have a view impact. He concluded by stating that common sense will tell you that these houses are not compatible with the neighborhood, as they are very large homes on very small, shallow lots. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Kennis if he agreed with staff's assessment that unit 45 .presents the best view in the apartment structure. Mr. Kennis answered that he did not know what unit has the best view. He did feel staff has done a good job with their analysis, and have consistently said that this project will cause a view impact. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Kennis, if the homes on lots 3, 4, and 5 were designed in such a manner that they were within the envelope to not require a height variation, would he be before the Planning Commission in support of the project. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 7 Mr. Kennis answered that he would have to look at the design before answering, but he did not think he would be as adamant about the project as he currently is. Michael Lamonte 26600 Michelson Drive, Irvine did not think the Villa Apartments should be included in the neighborhood compatibility study, as he felt it was improper to compare apartment buildings with large homes. He felt that all of the units should be included in the view analysis, as many residents have views that should not be ignored and deserve consideration. Regarding the view impairment of Terranea, he felt that the hotel is so far away that the view impairment will be minimal, and has been exaggerated by Mr. Ireland. Suzanne Wright 6430 Seacove Drive discussed the comment made that if the Villa Apartments are not used in the neighborhood compatibility analysis, how can a view be considered from the apartments. She stated that the views from the apartments have a right to be protected, just as any other structure in the City. However, in terms of figuring out zoning compliance and neighborhood compatibility, grandfathered non- conforming uses should not be looked at. She stated that, in terms of analyzing what homes should be analogized to in terms of neighborhood conformity, the City should be looking at the buildings that came after the zoning ordinances. She questioned the approval of the Variance, and noted that in the public hearing just conducted for the addition at 13 Seacove Drive, where the Planning Commission was reluctant to approve a large home on a smaller lot. She questioned how this project differed. She stated that when the developer bought this property he was well aware of the zoning and did not feel he was being deprived of the privilege of a homeowner or the owner of property. Further, she felt that if the project is approved, the owner will have been granted extraordinary privileges solely for economic benefit, which clearly violates California law. She noted that if the Villa Apartments are homes, and if they were condominiums rather than apartments, the City would most likely consider the views from all of the units, and she felt that the renters of these apartments were being discriminated against. Finally, she objected to what she felt was a distorted presentation by the developer of Terranea, and was an obvious attempt to mislead the public and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tetreault noted that this property is very unique and will require some type of Variance in order to be developed. He asked Ms. Wright if it was her position that, because of the uniqueness of the property and the Variances involved, if the applicant should not be allowed to develop this property. Ms. Wright answered that was not her position at all. She stated that the developer is trying to obtain the privileges of an RS1 zoned property on the smaller lot RS4 lot size. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the Variances being requested are for the required depth of the lots and to build higher than 16 feet. He asked Ms. Wright if it was her position that, because of the requested variances to the Code, if the developer should not be allowed to build any type of residential structure on this lot. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 8 Ms. Wright answered that the only houses in the area that came after the General Plan and zoning ordinances are zoned RS1, then the correct question is should the City allow this developer to rezone to RS4 rather than RS1 where a large home can be built on the lot that is approximately one acre in size, such as those on Seacove Drive. She felt the big issue is that this area, which is already over developed in terms of the General Plan, but was grandfathered in during incorporation, and increasing the problem by allowing the developer to zone this property RS4. David Emenhiser 6620 Channelview Court stated he is the president of the Seabluff HOA, expressed the HOA's concerns about the size of the proposed homes, the number of proposed homes, the parking issues, the golf safety issues, the developer's lack of approach in negotiating with the neighborhood HOA, and in particular his interaction with the elderly neighbors. He explained that the overriding concern was the height of the homes and the negative impact on the views from homes in the HOA. Bipin Bajani 6615 Beachview Drive stated his concern was the view from his residence. He stated that the proposed project will block a major portion of the view from his living area. Juan Carlos Monnaco 6619 Beachview Drive was upset that the pictures presented to the Planning Commission that were taken from his home were taken from areas that he and his family do not use very often, and not from the areas where they spend the majority of their time. He wanted someone to explain to him how anyone has the right to request the zoning on a property be changed and then be allowed to build a house that will block his view. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Monnaco where he thought the pictures should have been taken from to accurately represent his view. Mr. Monnaco felt that pictures should have been taken from inside the property in the center of the livable area, which represents the center of the family room and the counter area in the kitchen. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Monnaco if the proposed homes on lots 3, 4, and 5 were within the "by right" heights and did not need a height variation, would he in support of those structures. Mr. Monnaco could not speculate on something that is hypothetical, but at a given time when that is presented in such a fashion, he may be able to speak at that time. Dana Ireland (in rebuttal) stated that he did not think this was a popularity contest and has not asked any residents to come to these meetings to support his project. He addressed the concerns raised by Ms. Wright, and explained that many of the homes in the area were built after incorporation, not just those identified by Ms. Wright. He stated that RS4 is a well established use in the neighborhood, and that is why he applied for RS4 development. He also noted that Mr. Monnaco has never invited him into his home Planning commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 9 l so that he could understand what this proposal will do to his view. He felt that this project has been designed in a very sensitive way and asked that he Planning Commission support the project and forward it to the City Council. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Ireland to respond to Ms. Wright's comment that he is attempting to build RS1 sized homes on an RS4 size lot. Mr. Ireland answered he is meeting every condition for RS4 development. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked staff what would prevent the developer from digging deeper on the lot and lowering the height of the houses. Director Rojas answered that it would mean more grading and export, and possible drainage problems with the houses being below the street grade. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to respond to the comments made by Mr. Monnaco about the pictures taken from his property. Associate Planner Sohn stated that all pictures presented were taken from inside Mr. Monnaco's residence. She said these photographs were ones that staff felt best reflect the view impact on Mr. Monnaco's property. She noted that staff took pictures from all of the locations suggested by Mr. Monnaco, and that once staff started stepping away from the window towards the kitchen area, the project becomes smaller and smaller, and for that reason staff chose not to use that picture. Chairman Gerstner felt it was important to determine if the Planning Commission could approve changing the land use as it relates to the General Plan, and if the land use is changed, is it RS4, or some other land use. He suggested beginning the discussion with that part of the issue, to see if there is some consensus. Chairman Gerstner asked the Commissioners if they were prepared to take a straw vote regarding the land use issues only for this project, which are the first seven items on page 6 of the staff report. All of the Planning Commissioners felt they were able to make the findings for the first seven items on page 6 of the staff report. Chairman Gerstner asked the Planning Commission to next discuss the issue of view impairment. Commissioner Lewis stated that he went to Unit 45 and saw view impairment, however he did not think it was significant. He also did not take into consideration where the Terranea structures would be located. He also felt there was a view impairment from 6619 Beachview Court, but again he did not think it was significant. He felt it was ironic Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 10 that the Villa Apartments, which is such a domineering presence in the neighborhood, would be objecting to these homes. Commissioner Knight also did not factor in the Terranea development when doing his view analysis. He felt that the views from the Villa Apartments should be looked at, as the view ordinance specifically protects, enhances, and perpetuates views available to property owners. He also felt that, while there is a view impairment from unit 45, he did not think it was significant. Regarding 6619 Beachview Court, he stated that once the homes on lots 1 and 2 take away the ocean view, as they are being built to the by right height limit, there is a very narrow view corridor left. He agreed with the staff comments that the cumulative view impact is significant. Commissioner Tetreault stated that in the past he has questioned whether it is appropriate to take views from the Villa Apartments, however in interpreting the Ordinance he agreed that it talks about protecting property owner's views. He stated that in looking at the views, he is taking into consideration the Terranea development. He recognized that a different set of criteria was used when looking at views from the Villa Apartments when approving the Terranea project, however he noted that it has already been determined by the City that the view is not protected. He therefore found it difficult, with that decision already having been made, to then deny somebody else the right to build a structure that would actually impact that view even less than the Terranea development. Regarding the view from 6619 Beachview Court, he felt that was a different situation, as there is a protectable view. He felt that the structures on lots 3, 4, and 5 will impair his view from the viewing area in his home, but the amount of view blocked by the portion of the structures over 16 feet in height is difficult to discern. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that, while his reasons are different, he comes to the same conclusions as Commissioner Lewis had. Commissioner Karp stated he had nothing more to add. Vice Chairman Perestam felt that the view issues came down to what was being blocked from 6619 Beachview Court. He also felt there is definitely an impact to the view, but he did not think the amount of impact due to the structure above 16 feet in height on lots 3, 4, and 5 was significant. Chairman Gerstner stated that he could make the findings to support the zone change and that RS4 is an appropriate zoning for the land. He also felt that the requested depth of the lot is acceptable to accommodate the homes. He did not feel he was making this decision based on any undo enrichment to a developer. He also did not think the view will be significantly impaired from the Villa Apartments or the home on Beachview Court, and noted that he did not take Terranea into consideration when making that decision. He then asked the Commissioners to discuss their views on neighborhood compatibility. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 11 Commissioner Tetreault felt that neighborhood compatibility is very difficult to assess in this area, as there is the Villa Apartments as well as a wide range of RS4 and RS1 zoned lots. He questioned how these proposed homes would look to someone walking in the neighborhood, and if they would look totally out of place. He felt comfortable with . the proposed homes on lots 1 and 2, however the homes on lots 3, 4, and 5 are a little more vertical and loom a little large from the street. He noted, however, that this is already an over developed neighborhood, as mentioned by one of the speakers, and questioned why then this proposed development would be offensive. Commissioner Lewis stated that the City Attorney gave the Planning Commission four options to consider in terms of neighborhood compatibility, and he preferred option 4, which is consider the project site to be unique and constitutes its own immediate neighborhood for the purposes of neighborhood compatibility analysis. He stated that, given the transition status of this property, he can make the finding of neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Karp stated that the apartments exist in the neighborhood and he cannot ignore the fact that they are there and that they impact the size of the dwelling units. He agreed that these houses are larger, however he felt that houses in general are becoming larger. He stated that Terranea, while a larger project, will also have a vast open area of green, which will have visibility through it. He also noted that there are several large trees in boxes on the Terranea property, and he wondered where the trees will be planted and if they will be blocking any views. Commissioner Knight stated that the apartments are a non-conforming use, and would not be allowed under the current zoning. Therefore, they are only being included in the analysis because they happen to be in the RS4 zoning. He felt that neighborhood compatibility is about compatibility from home to home, and the large size of the apartment buildings throws all of the calculations out of kilter. He therefore would not use the apartments as part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He did not think that homes in the RS1 zoning should be included, and he did not agree that the proposed homes should not be considered their own neighborhood, as there are not enough units to be considered its own neighborhood. Therefore, his conclusion was to compare these homes with the homes in the RS4 neighborhood on Beachview and Channelview Court. He stated that he has difficulties with mass and bulk on lots 3, 4, and 5. He felt that the homes on lots 1 and 2 were the most compatible and that the houses on 3, 4, and 5 should be modeled more after these. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with the option that this proposed development can, and should, be treated as its own neighborhood. He was influenced by the comment by one of the speakers that these are RS1 homes being placed on RS4 lots, however he was also influenced by the applicant's comment that because of the design the homes do not appear as large from the street as they really are. He was still unsure, therefore, that these particular homes are the ones that should be built on these particular lots. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 12 Vice Chairman Perestam agreed with the option that these lots make up their own neighborhood, and therefore he was able to make the necessary findings regarding neighborhood compatibility. Chairman Gerstner felt that in this neighborhood there is an eclectic mix of homes. He also felt that the proposed homes on lots 3, 4, and 5 are rather large and massive and the two story entrances are accentuating some of that mass. He stated that was able to make the finding that these proposed RS4 residences are compatible with the other RS4 residences in the neighborhood. He explained that he could agree that this is a transitional neighborhood and supports the fact that it is its own unique neighborhood, although he did not think it was necessary to look at it that way given the eclectic mix of homes in the area. He stated that in regards to the apartment buildings, they are there and can't be ignored. He then asked the Commissioners for their input on the grading application. Commissioners Tetreault, Karp, Lewis, and Perestam all agreed that they didn't have any issues with the grading, noting that there is a minimal amount of grading required. Commissioner Knight stated that he would like to see the possibility of reducing some of the fill to meet what he felt was driving some of the neighborhood compatibility issues he had with the elevations. He stated that he would like to give the applicant an opportunity to consider redesign or alternatives. Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant the opportunity to speak to the issues of neighborhood compatibility and the ability to redesign some of the proposed homes based on comments made by the Planning Commission. Dana Ireland heard and understood the comments of the Commissioners. He asked that the Commission vote to send this to the Council, but also asked for additional specific directions and comments from the Commissioners for the specific architectural aspects of the project that they would like to see. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Chairman Gerstner stated that, as much as he would like to pass this on to City Council, he wanted to make sure that what was given to the City Council was a complete package, and not with a vague comment that some of the residences should be designed a little differently. Commissioner Lewis felt that it would be a disservice to everyone involved to try to fine tune every detail of this project before sending it to the City Council. He felt that the developer has been very responsive to the suggestions and directions given by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission should vote on this project tonight and send it to the City Council with recommendations and suggested direction on the aspects of the project they currently could not support. Planning commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 13 Commissioner Tetreault began by stating he felt reasonably comfortable in terms of neighborhood compatibility for the houses on lots 1 and 2. He felt that the large entry tower on the house on lot 4 was a feature that the Commission has discouraged in the past, and has a tendency to increase the appearance of bulk and mass from the street. He felt that reducing the tower feature would also reduce the appearance of bulk and mass. He felt that whatever could be done on lots 3, 4, and 5 to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass would be helpful, including reducing the actual size of the houses. Commissioner Knight agreed that the towers are one element that increases the appearance of bulk and mass. He also noted on lot 5 there is a vertical wall and gable roof, rather than hip roof, that create quite a bit of mass in this house. Chairman Gerstner stated that on lots 3, 4, and 5 the entry element accentuates the mass of the house and is not necessary and suggested removing it. He felt the chimneys could be lowered to the minimum allowed by Code. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the houses on lots 1 and 2 as presented, and to forward the recommendation of approval for lots 1 and 2 to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Tetreault moved to deny the application for the houses on lots 3, 4, and 5, as the Planning Commission was not able to make the findings for neighborhood compatibility and grading, and to forward this recommendation to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Vice Chairman Perestam asked if the motion was implying that the findings were able to be made for the height variation. Commissioner Tetreault answered that his motion was stating that findings could be made to support the height variation and all other applications and necessary findings, except for neighborhood compatibility and grading. Commissioner Knight stated that he would have to vote no on the motion, as he felt there is a small view impact, which he felt is significant. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. Director Rojas explained that the appropriate Resolutions would be prepared and presented on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Variance Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00510): 6521 Via Lorenzo Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 14 Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to April 24, 2007, as requested by the applicant, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7- 0). Commissioner Knight requested that at that meeting the rear setbacks of the other 20 homes be included, as well as the measurement between the garage and house of the subject property. 6. Variance, Grading Permit & Site,Plan Review (Case No. 2005-00509): 4204 Miraleste Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She stated that staff felt that the proposed addition and grading is not excessive, is similar to what is existing within the 20 closest homes, and is compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review. Commissioner Knight asked if the unpermitted game room is included in the square footage and is part of the application. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the unpermitted game room is included in the application and is part of the.square footage. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jim Bartz (architect for project) explained the design aspects, noting that the design and height are consistent with the neighbors, and asked the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted a letter received by Mr. Brodrick where he had two concerns, noting that he otherwise was in favor of the project. He stated that the letter indicates the applicant is willing to work with Mr. Brodrick, and asked Mr. Bartz if this is correct. Mr. Bartz answered that he and the owner are very willing to work with Mr. Brodrick to address his concerns regarding the project. Henry VanGieson 4205 Miraleste Drive (applicant) explained that there is a portion of his proposed addition that is subterranean by approximately 22 inches, and asked if it would be possible to drop the back elevation and retaining wall so that the lower level can sit on the ground level and not be subterranean. He stated staff had suggested the subterranean portion to help in the approval process. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 15 4' Chairman Gerstner asked staff to clarify why the lower floor addition is 22 inches below grade. Assistant Planner Kim explained that any addition to this residence would require a Variance application and increasing the overall height of the house would make the non-conformity more extreme. Therefore, staff suggested not making the overall height taller than existing so as not to increase the non-conformity. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that, while he would like to help the applicant, he was not comfortable in making a decision about raising the overall height of the house and increasing the non-conformity without input through a staff report. Chairman Gerstner stated that he would be in favor of approving the project as recommended by staff. Regarding the request from the applicant regarding the subterranean area of the addition, he did not feel that the adjustment of 22 inches would change his opinion about the acceptability of the proposed drawing, and could therefore approve the project either way. Vice Chairman Perestam asked for clarification as to how the height of the retaining wall would change if the lower level were to be completely above ground rather than 22 inches subterranean. Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing to allow the architect to explain how the retaining wall height would change. Jim Bartz explained that the amount of grading would be reduced by approximately 20 cubic yards, but the height of the upper retaining wall would stay the same. He explained that the overall height would increase from 31 feet 10 inches to 33 feet 8 inches, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if there would be any other issues that would be raised if the Planning Commission were to allow the request by the applicant to raise the level of the lower floor by 22 inches. Director Rojas felt that the only consequence may be that other residents may apply for a Variance request to exceed the downslope height. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007- thereby approving the Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). 7. Appeal of Grading Permit (Case No. 2005-00524): 20 Martingale Drive Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 16 Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the reason for the appeal of the Grading Permit. He stated that staff is recommending denial of the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's conditional approval of the after- the-fact grading permit with the recommended modifications. Commissioner Karp asked what the downside would be of overturning this decision and allowing the applicant to keep the requested walls. Associate Planner Fox explained that approving these walls may set precedents for residents to request more and more grading of extreme slopes in the canyon areas on lots that the City tends to encourage minimizing the amount of disturbance outside of the building footprint. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if there were any safety issues involved in regards to the construction of the walls and allowing these walls to remain. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff does not know, as the walls were not inspected during their construction by the city's building inspectors. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Sean O'Connor (attorney representing the applicants) explained that in reaching their decision, staff relied on the Municipal Code, which he does not feel is equipped to deal with the unique situation present at this site. He explained that this is an after-the-fact application and the Rays are totally innocent parties in this unfortunate situation. He stated that the two options are to leave the backyard as is or to try to restore a portion of the backyard to its former condition. He felt that the better solution is to leave the backyard in its current condition, as there are environmental and structural issues. He also noted there is no neighborhood opposition to leaving the backyard as is. He questioned what would be gained by restoring a portion of the backyard to its pre-grade condition. He also noted that to restore the yard as recommended by staff, would be extremely expensive for the owners, who are not the ones who built the illegal retaining walls. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the Rays were getting any compensation from the developer who built these walls. Mr. O'Connor answered that the Rays have ceased all communications with the original developer, as they did not feel he was acting in their best interest. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that when he was at the site speaking with the homeowner, it was mentioned that there was an aerial photograph which shows that at least a portion of this grading was done before the house was completed. He asked Mr. O'Connor to explain that. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 17 Mr. O'Connor showed an aerial photograph that was taken during the middle of the construction of the backyard, which he felt also shows that the construction of the house has not been completed. Pamela Ray 20 Martingale Drive (applicant) explained that they felt they had done their due diligence when buying this home from the developer, but later discovered the developer had not disclosed to them that the retaining walls were built without city approvals. She understood and respected the rules of the City, however felt it was unfair and unjust to penalize them in this instance. She stated that it would be extremely costly to implement the City's recommendations and that it would do more harm than good at this point. John Schurict (Palos Verdes Engineering) explained that he has looked at the area and explained why he feels it will cost $250,000 to implement this plan. He felt that the current retaining walls on the property have been beneficial to the property and have provided support to the slopes throughout the property. He proposed having an engineer test and make sure the walls are stable and structurally sound, and for the walls that do not comply to the Code or are structurally sound, have an engineer draw and submit a plan to the City to make the walls sound. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Schurict, to the best of his knowledge, did he feel the slope is safe and not a danger to any other properties. Mr. Schurict answered that to the best of his knowledge, he felt the slope was currently safe. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if they could clarify whether or not the building inspectors were aware that these retaining walls were being built during the construction of the residence. Director Rojas explained that when he spoke to the building inspectors about this situation they stated that during the construction of the home there was quite a bit of dirt being moved around and they were not aware that the retaining walls were being built at the time. Vice Chairman Perestam did not feel that by approving these walls any precedents would be set. He noted that there is the uncertainty as to whether or not the building inspectors were aware of the walls being built and if they gave approvals to the developer to build these walls. He stated that he was not inclined to force the Rays to remove the walls at this time. Commissioner Karp stated that staff came to the only conclusion they could, based upon the Code, however he did not agree with their decision. He stated that the grading was done with massive equipment that had to have been done during the construction Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 18 of the house, otherwise the contractors could not have gotten the equipment down on the slope. This led him to believe that the building inspectors either intentionally or negligently let this slip by. He did not feel the property is unsafe, the walls and slope do not affect anyone else, and it is not unsightly. He therefore felt the Planning Commission should overturn the Director's decision and uphold the appeal. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the Planning Commission, unlike staff, have the flexibility to find a reasonable balance in this particular circumstance. He stated that he supports the appeal. Commissioner Lewis moved to uphold the appeal and overturn the Director's decision and direct staff to prepare an appropriate Resolution and conditions of approval for the Planning Commission's consideration at the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Tetreault felt this is an important policy item, noting that after-the-fact construction has been dealt with many times in the past. He stressed that he has a great deal of sympathy for the applicant, noting that it is very evident that the current owners in no way were responsible for this situation. However, this is a significant deviation from what was originally approved by the City. He noted that this situation came to the City's attention because the next door neighbor wanted to do something similar in his backyard, and questioned what the City would now say to the neighbor about his proposed project. He felt that a compromise was a better way to go with this application, and suggested dealing with it from a functional standpoint. He suggested removing the lawn area and portions of the orchard, and possibly plant vegetation that will eventually grow over the walls, so that over time it will disappear. He felt that this is an important principle and that staff was justified in their recommendation. Commissioner Knight agreed, adding that he also is very sympathetic to the Rays situation. He noted however, that staff was already making exceptions in their recommendation, and felt that adding even more exceptions to the Code by allowing everything to remain was not a good precedent to set. He felt that staff made the right decision and supported the staffs recommendations. Chairman Gerstner stated he is very sympathetic to the Rays situation and did not feel the family is in any way responsible for the situation on their property. He felt that staff made the appropriate decision, given their latitude, he felt the Planning Commission can have greater latitude and he could support the current motion. He questioned whether the City can prosecute the source of the problem, as the developer seems to have quite a history with after-the-fact construction projects in the City. The motion to uphold the appeal and overturn the Director's decision was approved, (6-2) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault dissenting. 8. Coastal Permit, Conditional Use Permit Variance Permit (Case No. 2006- 00464): 44 '/2 Seacove Drive Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 19 9. Coastal Permit, Conditional Use Permit & Variance Permit (Case No. 2006- 5-0465): 6600 % Sea cove Drive Chairman Gerstner noted that since Agenda Items 8 and 9 are similar cases they will be heard together, but voted on separately. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of work requested and the history of the projects: He stated that staff was able to make all of the required findings for both applications and was recommending approval of the applications. Commissioner Knight was concerned about the drainage cap on the tank, as he felt it was very accessible and could easily be tampered with. He noted that this tank is within yards of an intertidal zone and wondered if it would be possible to add a condition that the cap be secured or a cover be put over the cap. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Mary Jacobs (civil engineer for the Sanitation District) noted that the two pump stations have been at the sites since the 1960's and the Sanitation District was encouraging the approval of these emergency generators to protect public health and the environment. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Jacobs if there was a way to secure the drainage caps. Ms. Jacobs said this was something that she could look into, but did not anticipate a problem. Commissioner Tetreault asked if there was any way either of these generators could be put below grade. Ms. Jacobs answered that there is no room at the Seacove facility to put anything else below grade, and she felt that it was very likely that there was also no room at the Long Point facility. She also felt it would be very costly to put these below ground. Chairman Gerstner asked Ms. Jacobs if it was possible to locate the generators somewhere else and run the electrical underground to the facility. Ms. Jacobs answered that there is no available space at the Seacove site, and in discussions with the developers at Terranea, they were told that they needed every available space on their property and were not willing to sell the Sanitation District any land to relocate the generator. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 20 Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court felt every effort possible should be made to underground the generators at both sites. He stated that the City can limit the amount of time the generators run and the generators can be shielded. Tim Richardson (project director for Terranea) felt that, given the amount of time and effort put into the Terranea project by the community and the developer consideration should be given to putting the generator at Long Point into a vault into the ground. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Richardson if Terranea would be willing to sell the Sanitation District the 400 square feet needed to put this facility underground. Mr. Richardson answered that the Sanitation District doesn't need the additional area, as it can go into the current easement area if it is designed properly. Mary Jacobs (in rebuttal) stated that the District has located these generators in the best locations possible, and would be more than happy to work with the City and neighbors to construct adequate and aesthetically screening as appropriate to allow the trails to go by with no view of the generators. She noted that it is very expensive to put these underground and is a lot of money to expect from the members of District 30 to pay for putting this underground, especially as it won't be used very often. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Jacobs if she knew approximately how much it would cost to underground these facilities. Ms. Jacobs answered that the District has not done the.calculations, but "guesstimated" in the $100,000 range. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis stated that he did not have enough information before him to be able to vote on either project at this evening, and would suggest continuing the items to allow the Sanitation District more time to calculate a dollar estimate of what it would take to underground the facilities, and Terranea more time to provide the City more information on how they feel these facilities can be put underground. Commissioner Tetreault stated that at a recent site visit to the Seacove facility he noted a rather large structure that has already been built that is larger than the proposed generator and is not shown on the plans. He also noted that the facility at Terranea is very close to a trail and is quite visible. He also was not sure he was prepared to vote on either application and needed more information on the feasibility of undergrounding the facilities. Vice Chairman Perestam felt that the Seacove location is not nearly as visible as the Terranea location, and that he would definitely like more information as to whether it is feasible to put the Terranea facility underground. He asked that all construction activity Planning commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 21 that is currently taking place at the two facilities cease until the appropriate permits have been issued. Commissioner Knight also needed more information before feeling comfortable in voting. He would like to see the silencer pack for the generators be included in the conditions of approval and was very concerned about the drainage caps being so accessible. Chairman Gerstner also felt the construction at the Seacove site should cease and he would like to see a drawing of what really is being constructed. At the Terranea site, he felt that the facility should be put underground. He asked that Terranea work with the Sanitation District to determine the feasibility to do so. He also asked that the Sanitation District present to the City a cost associated with doing so, and that the cost be itemized by construction trade disciplines. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing for Items 8 and 9 to the next meeting so that the applicant can address the issues discussed and Terranea and any other interested party can also address these issues, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Director Rojas noted that in order to continue these applications, a 90 day extension will be necessary from the applicant. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Mary Jacobs stated that she did not think she was the proper person to authorize a 90 day extension. Director Rojas suggested continuing the public hearing to the next meeting at which time the Sanitation District can either grant the 90 day extension or have all of the necessary information for the Planning Commission to consider a vote. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis amended his motion to include that staff communicate to the applicant that all construction activities associated with these applications be suspended, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting for Agenda Item No. 8 was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. The motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting for Agenda Item No. 9 was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 22 10. Minutes of January 23, 2007 Continued to the meeting of March 27, 2007 11. Minutes of February 13, 2007 Continued to the meeting of March 27, 2007 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 12. Pre-agenda for the meeting of March 27, 2007 Reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:13 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2007 Page 23