Loading...
PC MINS 20071113 pproved December 1 0 7 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 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 Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Mikhail, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed one letter for Agenda Item No. 2 and four letters for Agenda Item No. 4. He also noted that the recruitment for the three soon to be vacant Planning Commission positions will begin soon. Commissioner Knight reported that he spoke to the appellant for Agenda Item No. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. View Restoration Permit(Case No. VRP2007-00019): 5335 Rolling Ridge Rd Chairman Gerstner recused himself from this item as well as Item No 2. because of the proximity of the project sites to his residence. He left the dais. Director Rojas stated that this item is the Resolution memorializing the decision made at the previous Planning Commission meeting. He noted, however, that there are two speakers for the item and it will therefore be removed from the Consent Calendar in order to hear the speakers. He added that any discussion be limited to ensuring that the language in the Resolution accurately reflects the decision made at the last hearing. Senior Planner Alvarez referred to the Resolution, circle pages 6, 7, and 8 and the clarification made to the Resolution to note that November through March are the cooler months of the year for tree trimming. He stated that tree trimming that is to occurring during the cooler months of the year applies to Conditions one through eight in the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Ralph Allman (applicant) stated he is very happy with the decision for trimming 10 of the 12 trees, as he felt it would help restore the view. Douglas Trowbridge (foliage owner) stated he is very unhappy with the decision. He stated that the findings state there was no informal agreement, and reminded the Planning Commission of the 1974 private covenant, which he felt is an agreement between his property and the applicant's property. He considers the agreement carries the same meaning as the view restoration ordinance. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis noted that he will not be supporting the Resolution, as he felt it should pertain to all 12 trees rather than just 10 trees. Commissioner Karp felt that there was a private agreement in place and while the City cannot enforce this agreement, it should not interfere with the agreement. He noted that when Dr. Allman bought the property there was no view and felt it was a bad policy to start granting these types of view restoration applications. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-64 thereby adopting the Resolution as modified, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (4-1-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting and Commissioner Karp abstaining. CONTINUED BUSINES 2. Height Variation Permit, Site Plan Review, Extreme Slope Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00179): 5329 Bayridge Road Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 2 Commissioner Lewis noted that although he is eligible to participate in the discussion of this item, he felt that the project is part of his neighborhood and therefore recused himself from the item and left the dais. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project and then reviewed the revisions made by the applicant since the last Planning Commission meeting. She stated that staff acknowledged the applicant made an effort to address staff's and Planning Commission's concerns, however staff does not feel the concerns have been entirely addressed. She noted continuing concerns with bulk and mass and view impairment, and therefore staff was recommending denial of the Height Variation and Site Plan review for the new residence, and recommending approval of the Extreme Slope Permit for the deck in the rear yard. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that again staff recommended denial with prejudice, and asked staff why they felt it should be denied with prejudice rather than without prejudice. Director Rojas explained that the view impairment is the issue prompting the recommendation of denial with prejudice since staff felt that anything built over 16 feet in height would significantly impair a view of the mountains from a surrounding property. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the applicant had submitted a letter, and one of the issues raised in the letter was why the San Gabriel Mountains were viewed in one regard and the Santa Monica Mountains in another. He asked staff to clarify this issue. Director Rojas explained that the Development Code excludes from protection mountains that are not normally visible. He stated that by past practice, staff recognizes there are some mountains that are seen much more often than others, as some mountains appear only on extremely clear days. Therefore, staff felt that the mountains seen from the adjacent neighbor are the San Gabriel mountains that one tends to see more often, and thus staff believes are a protected view. He added that what is normally visible is subjective, and the Planning Commission can determine they are not a protected view. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if this was based on any kind of survey or formal documentation as to how often these mountains are visible. Director Rojas answered no, that it is based on years of doing view analysis and recognizing which mountains tend to be in view frames and which are rarely visible. He noted that Big Bear and the San Gorgonio Mountains appear very rarely, while the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains, which frame the basin, are seen more regularly. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if they felt the revised plan continues to show bulk and mass from the street. Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 3 Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff does not have a concern with the bulk and mass of the revised project from the public right-of-way. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Louie Tomaro (architect) stated that there had been discussion at the last meeting to reduce the bulk, lowering the height, and reduce the second floor, which he feels he has achieved. He also reduced or removed a number of windows to address the privacy issues of the neighbors. Further, he noted there is now a 15 foot side yard setback along the easterly side of the residence., He explained other modifications that he had made as reflected in the revised plans, and discuss how the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commission had been mitigated. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Tomaro if he had considered lowering the building pad or building a portion of the house sub-terranean. Mr. Tomaro answered that he did look at placing a portion of the house sub-terranean, but instead lowered the building pad by one foot, lowered the plate height, and lowered the pitch of the roof. He explained that the current lot is already four feet lower than the neighbor above, and this is relatively small pad to work with. Susan Semelka 5329 Bayridge Road stated that in building this home they are trying to be sensitive to all of the neighbor's concerns, however what makes one neighbor happy makes another neighbor unhappy. Therefore, they are trying to find the best compromise for everyone. Regarding privacy, she felt the current design actually provides more privacy to the neighbors and themselves than they currently have. She explained that they have considered many options when designing this house, including sub-terranean and single story, but felt this current design was the best solution. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Semelka how often she was able to see the San Gabriel mountains. Ms. Semelka answered that she was not able to see the San Gabriel mountains very often, and that they were able to see the Santa Monica mountains much more often. Lance Grindle 5337 Bayridge stated his concern was privacy, and that a single story home would suit him much better. He stated that he would like to see the back of the proposed home and the proposed balcony to be at least even with the back of his home, which he felt would help protect his privacy. He felt that there was a solution to the problem, and would like to be able to work out the problem. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Grindle how often he sees the San Gabriel mountains. Mr. Grindle answered that he sees them often enough, but could not give an exact count of days. Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 4 Stacy Martin 5338 Bayridge Road stated that he wanted to see this project happen and felt that the neighborhood needs to be upgraded. He felt that if he could get a good portion of his view starting at the fireplace, that would be reasonable. He stated that he had discussed with the architect a minor revision that would open up a little more of his view, and Mr. Tomaro agreed that could be done. Mr. Tomaro (in rebuttal) felt that the area Mr. Martin was discussing can be moved in to satisfy his concerns. In discussing privacy, Mr. Tomaro explained that currently there are privacy issues between the neighbors, as they can look right in to the neighboring properties. He felt that with moving the house in and putting opaque glass in the second story window, the only outstanding privacy issue is the balcony. However, he noted that the balconies have been angled so as not to be able to look directly into the neighboring residence. He felt he had done everything he could to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. Vice Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Tomaro to clarify the area of possible revision that Mr. Martin discussed. Mr. Tomaro indicated on a photograph the area in question that is proposed to be moved in three feet. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault recalled from past hearings where there is an area that is considered a protected view, and the property owners have stated that they are not concerned about losing that protected view that, based on the wording in the View Ordinance, the homeowners subjective opinion or value placed on that view is not to be considered. He asked staff to clarify. Director Rojas explained that Height Variation findings are specific in terms of the findings that must be made, and one of the findings is that the area of a proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. He noted that it doesn't say whether the view owner objects or not or whether they feel it is significant, only that the finding must be made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that since "significant" is not defined, it is subjective and up to the Planning Commission to determine if a view is significant or not. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the architect and owners have done quite a bit of work and have made a sincere effort to address the issues raised by the neighbors, staff, and the Planning Commission. However, he felt that the proposed residence still appears too large and too bulky in comparison to other homes in the neighborhood. He felt it was especially large and bulky when looking at it from the neighbor's property to the east. Regarding the issue of significant view, he stated that in prior cases he has Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 5 argued against imposing a subjective view of what is a substantial view impairment from the standpoint that the Planning Commission does not take into consideration the personal beliefs and opinions of the property owners who hold the view. He stated there is precedent set by the Planning Commission where the opinions of a property owner whose view is being impaired have been disregarded, and the Planning Commission ruled that there was substantial view impairment, even though the property owner didn't care. He stated he was not in favor of that, noting that if a property owner doesn't care about a particular view it is not for anybody else to impose upon that property owner their own views on how loss of that view many diminish the value of that property upon resale or some other factor as to why it's an important view. Therefore, he was inclined not to impose a strict interpretation on view impairment from the standpoint of not paying attention to the property owner whose view is being lost. However, he did feel it was a substantial view of the ridgeline of the San Gabriel Mountains, and in the past the Planning Commission has ruled that is a view worth protecting. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Tetreault, adding that in regards to the view Mr. Martin has indicated that the view of the city lights is an important view for him and that he would rather lose the view of the mountains than the city, lights, and under this current proposal Mr. Martin feels he is getting more back than he is losing. Therefore, as to the view issue, he was satisfied, noting however that if Mr. Martin had objected his opinion would be different. Regarding the issue of bulk and mass, while he was pleased with the changes made by the architect, he still felt the project was too big and bulky for the neighborhood. Commissioner Karp stated that housing stock in the City is changing by getting larger and larger to keep track with the market demands. However, he still felt that this design was too bulky, but thought the architect could make further changes to mitigate the bulk and mass. He agreed with Commissioners Tetreault and Ruttenberg regarding the issue of the view. He noted that he could not support the staff's recommendation of denial with prejudice, as it was too onerous and put the applicant at a disadvantage. Commissioner Knight disagreed with the other Commissioners in terms of how the Code should be interpreted in terms of view protection. He felt that the Code is very clear that a determination must be made as to what is a significant view and what isn't. He felt this keeps the Planning Commission's opinions consistent across the City. He felt that if the determination of significant or not significant view impact were to be based on public input from the property owners, decisions will become inconsistent. He stated that he certainly listens to and takes into consideration the input from the property owners, but does not make his decision solely on their input. He also agreed with staff's interpretation that the San Gabriel mountains are a significant view and that the current proposal from the applicant significantly impacts the neighbor's view. He noted that when this project was previously before the Planning Commission he was not in favor of a continuance, but since it was continued he had asked for substantial changes to the structure. He did not think this proposal had enough substantial changes to change his opinion, and therefore he agreed with staff's recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 6 Vice Chairman Perestam felt that quite a bit had been done in the re-design to mitigate the bulk and mass issues. He agreed with Commissioner Knight in terms of the view issue and how significant view should be determined in regards to the Code, and felt the San Gabriel mountains are a protected view. He noted that this lot is smaller than most lots in the neighborhood, which limits what can be done on the lot. He stated that he would be in favor of a continuance to allow the applicant and architect the opportunity to further redesign to address the continued concerns of the Planning Commission and staff. Commissioner Knight noted that part of staff's recommendation is for the approval of the Extreme Slope Permit for the deck in the rear yard. He felt the Planning Commission may want to consider adding some Conditions of Approval for the deck, such as screening and vegetation. Vice Chairman Perestam re-opened the public hearing to discuss with the architect the possibility of continuing the item for redesign. Louie Tomaro stated that he would like to request a continuance, but asked,for clarification. He did not think the design could be modified to open up the view of the San Gabriel mountains for the neighbor, and questioned if there was a consensus that be done. He also felt there were things that could be done to the design to address the bulk and mass issues. He stated he would like to come back with a modified version of the two-story structure, but asked the Planning Commission if that would be appropriate. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault felt the architect had a legitimate question. He stated that, given the statements by Mr. Martin that he was not concerned about the loss of the view of the ridgeline of the San Gabriel mountains and that he was willing to give up the view of the mountains in order to gain a city lights view, he would be able to make the finding for regarding view. He noted, however, that if Mr. Martin were to come back to the Planning Commission at the next hearing and say he has changed his mind and does want the mountain view, then he would change his opinion as well. Commissioner Karp was concerned with the view issue and felt the issue should be resolved before sending the architect back to redesign the project. Commissioner Knight felt the Planning Commission needs to evenly apply the Development Code across the board throughout the City. He felt that certain standards have been set as to what constitutes a significant view impact and certain standards have been set in regards to what happens when the significant view impact is created. He stressed that no disrespect to homeowners or neighbors who has their opinion on what is significant and what is not significant. Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed that the Code needs to be applied consistently. He felt that Planning Commission should protect the view that brings the most pleasure to the person looking at the view. He felt that in this case the Planning Commission would be preserving a view that the property owner feels is more valuable to him than another view that he is giving up. He felt that the Code language allows him to do just that, as he interprets the Code to be more in the eyes of the beholder rather than more abstract. Vice Chairman Perestam felt that the architect will have to bring more of the ridgeline of the mountain view back into the view before he will be comfortable voting to approve the project. Commissioner Karp stated that he is still undecided on how he feels about the issue of the view, noting that this is not a black and white issue. He felt however, that if the homeowner is willing to waive his right to a view of the mountains, the Planning Commission may want to take that into consideration. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 8, 2008 to allow the applicant and architect an opportunity to make revisions they feel are consistent with the comments of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Knight stated that his concerns are not only the view, but the bulk and mass and privacy issues as well. He felt that changes to the design would have to be significant for him to be able to make the necessary findings. The motion to continue the public hearing to January 8, 2008 was approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00349): 5 Diamonte Lane Chairman Gerstner and Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail began the staff report by noting that after staff performed their analysis and prepared the staff report, it was determined that the Minor Exception Permit would not be needed and the Height Variation incorporated the Site Plan .Review. Therefore, the Planning Commission would only be considering the requested Height Variation. She explained the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She stated that staff had determined there were potential incurred by the property owner to the south, however staff provided a Condition of Approval for clearstory windows to mitigate those impacts. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Planning commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 8 Commissioner Knight questioned staff's recommendation to remove the Pepper tree, noting that this type of tree can be severely trimmed and continue to grow quite nicely. He understood the need to remove the Pine trees. Director Rojas stated that because of the amount of tree that would have to be trimmed and the on going maintenance issues the trimming would cause, staff felt it would be better to remove the Pepper tree. He noted that there is a section in the Ordinance that allows for removal of trees if they significantly impair a view and are located on a property where a proposed addition is being requested. Commissioner Knight felt that the property owner should be given the option of trimming or removal of the Pepper tree. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Bjorn Borgen 5 Diamonte Lane (applicant) stated his only comment on the staff report is Condition No. 20 which relates to the clearstory windows. He asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the use of obscure windows on that side of the structure, especially the window closest to the neighbor's backyard. He explained there is a 10- foot setback on both properties as well as a driveway that goes between the properties. He felt that it would be very difficult from someone looking out this window to see into the neighbor's backyard. He also distributed pictures that he stated represents the view from his property looking towards the neighbor's backyard. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Borgen if he had an opinion in regards to trying to save to removing the Pepper tree on his property. Mr. Borgen stated that he would prefer to leave the Pepper tree until the Pine trees have been removed, and then make the decision on what to do with the Pepper tree. However, he didn't want this tree issue to hold up the approval process, and would be willing to remove the Pepper tree if necessary. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff their opinion on Mr. Borgen's request for obscure windows. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that Mr. Borgen was asking for an obscure window in one area and a regular window in the other. She stated that when staff reviewed the pictures taken by Mr. Borgen, it was agreed that there would not be any privacy impacts from the one window. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-65 as amended to change the west window along the south fagade of the second story to be obscured glass, while the east window along the south fagade may be un- obscured glass, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 9 Commissioner Knight suggested a revision to the motion that the California Pepper tree be trimmed to 16 feet or removed if requested by the owner. Commissioner Ruttenberg accepted the motion, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007- 65 was approved as amended, (7-0). 4. Appeal of Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2007-00143): 30057 Via Victoria Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the history of the project and the details of the proposed residence. He explained the basis of the appeal was that the structure was excessively high and would impair the view from the appellant's residence. He reviewed the staff's analysis and the Director's findings in approving the project, and stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the Planning Commission was to consider view impairment from the neighbor's home if the proposed project is under the 16-foot by right height limit. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the proposed residence measures 14 feet in height and therefore can be built by-right, and view impairment is not a consideration when doing the analysis for approval. He stated that what the Planning Commission can consider is the issue of neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that there have been houses in this development before the Planning Commission and there has been a lot of discussion on the allowed height of the homes. He stated that it was his understanding that the developer wanted to develop 13 homes and the neighbors across the street wanted fewer, and an agreement was reached to trade off the 13 units for an agreed maximum height to protect views. Director Rojas explained that at the time the tract was before the Planning Commission there were neighborhood meetings to address the concerns and agreements made between neighbors and the developer. He stated that ultimately a decision was made by the Planning Commission and City Council that resulted in conditions of approval with specific ridge heights and elevations for future homes in the tract. He explained that a similar project in the same tract was heard by the Planning Commission earlier this year. He noted the neighbors raised the same concern then, that the decisions made years ago were made based on incomplete or inaccurate information. The Planning Commission came to the conclusion that it is up to the City Council to change the tract conditions. Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 10 Commissioner Ruttenberg's understanding was that this appellant was not a party to those discussions and agreements, and their location in relation to this tract is different than the neighbor's who did participate in these neighborhood meetings, and questioned why this neighbor was not given the opportunity to participate in these meetings. Director Rojas answered that whatever meetings were held and deals made were between the applicant and the private property owners. He stated that neither staff nor the Planning Commission can now go back in time and make changes to the conditions of approval for the tract. Commissioner Knight noted in the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines, there is a section that addresses the neighbor's views, and asked if that was something that could be considered. Director Rojas pointed out that it is a recommendation in the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines, and not a requirement, and therefore it is not a finding that has to be made. He stated that a neighborhood compatibility finding is different than a view finding. Commissioner Knight noted that many of the chimneys in the tract are quite large, and asked staff if they have ensured the chimneys on this home will be at the minimum allowed by code. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that a condition has been added which says that any architectural features on the roof not exceed 396 feet. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Andrew Mottram 30103 Via Victoria (appellant) showed several pictures of how he felt his view will be obstructed by this proposed residence. He asked that the Planning Commission look at the situation and see if there is a way the height of this residence can be addressed and modified. He discussed neighborhood compatibility, discussing the large size of the proposed house and how much bigger it will be than the other homes in the neighborhood on Via Victoria. Melanie Mottram 30103 Via Victoria (appellant) explained that when she contacted staff after the silhouette was erected, she was told that the decision regarding her view had been decided in a closed meeting by the Planning Department. She stated that a discussion was just held on a previous case about the view of the San Gabriel Mountains and she questioned why a discussion can't be held regarding her view. She questioned how this house can be considered compatible with the others in the existing neighborhood, as it is so much larger. Hal Arafat 7231 Rue Godbout stated that the applicant made a business decision to build thirteen homes and specific guidelines were set in place, however these guidelines Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 11 are not being followed. He stated that in this situation there will be four homes being serviced by one driveway, and this particular home will be over 6,000 square feet in size. He stated that this house will be next to a 3,000 square foot home and a 5,000 square foot home, and questioned how this can be considered compatible. He felt these homes will look more like an apartment building rather than four separate homes. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Arafat what he would like to see on this property. Mr. Arafat answered that he would be happier with a home built that was less than 5,000 square feet in size, which he felt would be more compatible with the neighborhood. He also felt the height of the house should be lowered approximately 3 feet, to be where it was originally intended to be. Sid Croft (attorney representing the developer) stated that until tonight this appeal was based on the ridge height of the proposed home, and not on neighborhood compatibility. He stated that the developer was not asking for any exceptions or to do anything radically different, noting that the proposed ridge height complies with all of the conditions of the tract map. He did not feel there was a valid basis for the appeal, and agreed with the staff report and staff's findings. Steve Kuykendall (representing the developer) stated that the grade on this particular lot was significantly lowered in order to accommodate the three lots above it. He stated that it was his understanding that the pad elevation of the Mottram's residence is at approximately the same height as the ridge elevation of the subject property. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he noted that all of the discussion has been in regards to compatibility with the homes on Via Victoria. He explained that this property is surrounded 360 degrees by houses, and there are other houses in the immediate area that are larger than those on Via Victoria. Mr. Mottram (in rebuttal) stated that the developer lowered the grade on their properties, not to save the neighbor's views, but to be able to keep thirteen lots. He did not feel the developer had any interest in trying to save the neighbor's views. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault noted that a decision has been made by the City Council as to what can be built on these properties, and therefore they were the last body to rule on this issue. He asked staff if the Planning Commission has the authority to do anything different in that regard or if the Planning Commission has the authority to do anything that is inconsistent with what the City Council has done. Director Rojas answered that there are set tract conditions that the City Council imposed, and the Planning Commission cannot change those conditions. However, while the City Council approved set tract conditions which established ridge heights and maximum square footage, the City Council also said that each house is to go through Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 12 the neighborhood compatibility process. Therefore, the Planning Commission's purview extends as far as neighborhood compatibility extends. Commissioner Karp noted that if the City Council has established ridge heights and square footage, and questioned what the Planning Commission is looking at when discussing neighborhood compatibility, other than architectural style. Director Rojas agreed that given the circumstances, the Commission's purview is limited, noting there may be issues with the architectural design of the home that makes the home appear massive or bulky, which might be able to be addressed with subtle changes to the design. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the conditions state that the maximum square footage for the home is 6,000 square feet. He felt that in reviewing neighborhood compatibility the Planning Commission could determine that the house is too large when comparing it to others in the neighborhood and ask that the square footage be reduced. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify the discrepancy in the building height of the residence on this lot. Senior Planner Schonborn referred to circle page 22 of the staff report, and explained that the discrepancy in the building height between the tract conditions and the proposed residence is due to a discrepancy in the pad elevation as stated in the conditions of approval adopted by the City Council in October 2004 and the grading plan approved by the City Council adopted that same date and referred to as Revision B. He noted that the approved tract Revision B shows the lowest finished pad elevation for lot 12 as 370, while the conditions of approval identified the lowest pad elevation as 373. He stated that this new grading plan with the new elevation was approved by the City Council, however the new amended elevation was not changed in the conditions of approval. Director Rojas noted that the ridge line stayed the same in Revision B. Commissioner Karp asked staff if it was physically possible to lower this lot by three feet and build this house. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that it is a question of access to the buildable portion of the residence, and noted that the driveway is already at its maximum 20 percent slope. Director Rojas added that for the last house proposed in this tract which was the subject of a previous appeal, staff stated that the grade could be lowered, however the City Council said there would be no need to lower the grade because it currently meets the conditions of approval for the tract. Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 13 Commissioner Knight noted that the development standards for the tract are set to be the maximums, and that at the 370 pad elevation it is possible for the developer to build a 23 foot house to 393 and still comply with the City Council direction. Director Rojas answered that technically it could be done, but didn't know if that was something the developer had even considered as an alternative. Commissioner Knight stated that although they were to discuss neighborhood compatibility, he had issues with the process of how the final decision on the height elevations were determined by the City Council. He was concerned that the Mottrams were not included in that process. He felt that the intent of the City Council was to minimize view impact to neighboring properties when setting the height levels of the proposed homes. However, if there is a particular party that comes before the Planning Commission as an appellant that was not included in that analysis before the City Council, he was concerned there was a process that wasn't properly applied and the analysis from the Mottram property wasn't taken into consideration. Director Rojas understood Commissioner Knight's concern, but stated that the. Planning Commission's purview in this case is limited to neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the Planning Commission has a rather confined scope of what it is they can review in this matter. While there may have been some questions, omissions, or errors made at the City Council level, he felt that is where those issues should go for clarification and review. He.felt the Planning Commission can look at neighborhood compatibility, and that is what he will do in reviewing this appeal. In discussing neighborhood compatibility, he felt that because of its location and the architectural articulation, it does not appear as bulky as a 6,000 square foot house can look. He felt that the proposed house is compatible with the neighborhood and was in favor of following staff's recommendation. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commission Tetreault to the extent that there are a lot of issues, concerns, and problems with the way this was all done, which he did not think he could address since he is limited to neighborhood compatibility. However, when looking at neighborhood compatibility he stated he is looking at a home that is nearly double than the twenty closest homes and is not on the largest lot. He understood that he could not consider view in his analysis, however he could look at whether or not this structure has minimized the view impact. He stated that he did not know if he could make that finding because of the size of the structure. Therefore, he did not think the home being proposed on the lot was compatible with the neighborhood because of its overall size. Commissioner Lewis agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Ruttenberg. He stated that the feeling this neighborhood has that it is not being well served by this development is probably a valid feeling. He stated that the neighborhood feels they are victims of a bait and switch, where they thought they had bought a protection for their Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 14 view and the protection wasn't there for them when the silhouette was erected. He therefore has great sympathy for the neighborhood. In regards to neighborhood compatibility, he stated that the Planning Commission is a steward for the views and the character of the neighborhood, and when the City Council gives them the discretion to perform a neighborhood compatibility analysis, he felt that everything is on the table to consider. He felt that just because a house can be built doesn't mean it should be built. He therefore could not support staff's findings and recommendations in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the tract conditions for lot 12 state that a house up to 6,000 square feet can be built. Therefore, if he disagrees with that number in terms of size, he doesn't have the freedom to say he denies the project based on the fact it is 6,000 square feet in size. Director Rojas explained that there are different interpretations of the condition, however staff has consulted with the City Attorney and agreed that the tract conditions allow for a house up to 6,000 square feet, which means something smaller can be approved, but nothing larger than 6,000 square feet can be approved. He noted that the developer has the interpretation that they have a right to build a 6,000 square foot house. Commissioner Knight stated that based on the interpretation of staff and the City Attorney, he agrees with the other Commissioners that a 6,000 square foot house is too large for this lot and is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood based on its size, bulk, and mass. Commissioner Karp asked staff what the lot coverage of a house on this size lot would be if it weren't part of this tract. Director Rojas answered the lot coverage would be 50 percent. Commissioner Karp stated that a superior body to this group set forth parameters and he did not think that 6,000 square feet was drawn out of a hat, but rather some thought was given to that number. He estimated that on a lot this size with 50 percent lot coverage a 9,000 square foot house could theoretically be built. He felt that neighborhood compatibility in this case would reflect architectural style, articulation, and setbacks. He therefore felt this house was reasonably compatible with the .neighborhood. He felt it was unfortunate that the Mottrams may not have received all of the notices sent out by the City, however he didn't think that was the Planning Commission's doing, nor do they have the power to rectify it. He stated that he favors supporting staff's recommendation. Vice Chairman Perestam felt that the City Council put aside the neighborhood compatibility issues, possibly as a safeguard when looking at each house. He felt that the 6,000 square foot decision was not meant to be by-right, but rather that a house up to 6,000 square feet could be built. He felt that the proposed house is too large for the Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 15 lot and is not compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, he could not support staff's recommendations. Chairman Gerstner also did not think the developer has a right to 6,000 square feet for this residence. He did, however, note that this house will be larger than most of the surrounding residences because of the size of the lot and how it is zoned. He felt that if this tract had been approved with strict sizes, height requirements, and lot coverage there is still some discretion with regard to the homes in the community. He explained that there are different styles of homes in the community and that the compatibility in this case is more in regards to the way the house looks and its bulk in regards to the rest of the neighborhood, and not as strictly related to its size. Therefore, he could find that this house is compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis moved to overturn the Director's decision thereby upholding the appeal and denying without prejudice the construction of proposed residence, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg requested the Chairman re-open the public hearing to hear from the developer. He wanted to know if the developer was interested in possibly redesigning the house to address the concerns of the neighbor and the Planning Commission. Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing to allow the developer a chance to answer the question posed by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Steve Kuykendall (representing the developer) stated that the developer would rather appeal the decision to the City Council. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Director Rojas noted that if the motion is approved, staff will have to prepare the proper Resolution and present it on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. He also noted that the appeal period would not start until the Planning Commission approves that Resolution. The motion to overturn the Director's decision and uphold the appeal was .approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Tetreault and Karp and Chairman Gerstner dissenting. 5. Interpretation procedure for Height Variation revision (Case No. ZON2007- 00348): 28953 Crestridge Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the history of the project, the error made in the ridgeline measurement, and that the Director initiated the interpretation procedure due to the discrepancies, since it was a key component of the discussion at the previous Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the neighbors Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 16 raised concerns regarding the one-story roof line and the relocation of the chimney as it relates to their view. He explained that the one-story portion of the roof line does not exceed 16 feet in height and any view that is blocked would not be considered a protected view. Therefore, staff believes that the change in ridgeline is a minor, non- substantial revision that does not result in a significant impact. Staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission concurs with the Director's interpretation of the minor modifications and approve them via minute order. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. William Howe (contractor for the project) explained that this major remodel is being built over the original foundation and therefore it is remaining in the same location and virtually at the same height as it was when originally built in the early 1950s. Commissioner Knight asked if the original home had a fireplace associated with it and if it was in the same location. Mr. Howe answered that the fireplace changed from its original location on the end wall to the new location on the side wall. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations in its entirety to affirm the Planning Commission's previous action on the requested height variation revision via minute order, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). 6. Zoning Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2007-00377): Citywide Associate Planner Fox presented a brief staff report explaining the upcoming process, and staff's recommendation that this report be reviewed and filed. Commissioner Knight moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS 7. Availability of a complete electronic Planning Commission agenda Director Rojas explained that the Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available on a CD to any Commissioner requesting one. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8. Minutes of September 11, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 17 Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7-0). 9. Minutes of September 25, 2007 Commissioner Knight noted a revision to page 8 of the minutes. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-0-1) with Chairman Gerstner abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 10. Minutes of October 23, 2007 Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0) with Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Perestam only voting on Item No 1. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 11. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of November 27, 2007 The pre-agenda was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 13,2007 Page 18