Loading...
PC MINS 20070925 Approved November 107 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Perestam at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Perestam. Absent: Chairman Gerstner was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed four items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 3. He also reported that at their last meeting, the City Council adopted the Ordinance relating to minor miscellaneous Code Amendments that were reviewed by the Planning Commission. He also noted that the Planning Commission decision relating to the project on Seacove Drive has been appealed to the City Council. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. View Restoration Permit (ZON2007-00019): 5335 Rolling Ridge Road Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining that staff is recommending continuance of the item to October 23, 2007 in order to allow the foliage owner time to obtain core boring samples in order to accurately project the age of the trees in question. Director Rojas polled the Commissioners as to who had not visited the foliage owner's property. Vice Chairman Perestam stated that he had not been to the site and therefore could not participate in the discussions regarding this item. He left the dais and Commission Knight acted as Chairman for this item. Commissioner Knight opened the public hearing. Dr. Ralph Allman (applicant) stated that he has given evidence that the trees in question were planted in 1957 and the question at hand is whether or not the trees were view impairing when the lot was created. He stated that property owners have attested to the trees not being in the view, and that aerial photo experts have determined that that tree heights cannot be ascertained by the UCLA aerial photo. He displayed topography maps which he felt showed that the trees could not have grown enough to be view impairing by the time the lot was created in 1965. In addition, he explained that topo maps contain elevation measurements at the point where tree Nos. 1 and 2 are planted. He stated that the elevation of tree No. 1 is approximately 66 feet in elevation and the lot where the view is taken is 86 feet. Therefore, he felt that the tree would have to grow twenty feet to become view impairing. He stated that the city arborist felt the tree would grow approximately 2 feet per year, which would have been an 18 foot tree and even at 3 feet per year the tree would have been 24 feet in height. For tree No. 2, he stated it is planted at 66 feet and the driveway is at 89 feet. He felt that at 23 feet the tree would be at a level of the driveway elevation. Commissioner Lewis asked Dr. Allman if he opposed the request for continuance of the public hearing. Dr. Allman responded that he would rather have a decision this evening, but was willing to wait until October 23rd if that was what the Planning Commission felt they needed to be satisfied with their decision. Doug Trowbridge (foliage owner) explained his only hope of keeping his trees was by showing that they were view impairing trees when the lot was created in 1965, and appreciated the Planning Commission's patience in granting extra time. He added that he felt the Planning Commission was given inaccurate information as to the date the trees were planted. He thought that Helen Graux planted the trees and not Mr. Walker because she stated she did. Moreover, her property contains trees that are at similar heights, and a 1956 aerial photo shows trees that are not mere saplings. Dr. Allman (in rebuttal) distributed an aerial photograph to the Planning Commissioners which he stated was taken in 1956. He noted that there are trees shown on Rolling Ridge Road and Via Campesina, but no trees are found on the subject lot. He also stated that a letter from Mr. Poxon corroborates the 1957 planting date. Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2007 Page 2 Commissioner Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight stated he was unclear how the tree Nos. 1 and 2 were situated on the slope in relation to the pad elevation heights and how these trees could be view impairing trees in 1965, given the city arborists' estimated growth rate of these trees. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that the City Arborist has examined these trees and it appears these trees have the characteristics of fast growing trees, meaning they could have grown three feet per year or more., He also noted that staff may disagree with the elevations presented by Dr. Allman, explaining that the map presented does not show on the elevation contours where trees Nos. 1 and 2 are located. Commissioner Knight stated that he would like to have a clear picture of the height elevations and growth rates of the trees prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that it would be helpful if the City Arborist were available to attend the October 23rd meeting. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to October 23, 2007, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0-1) with Vice Chairman Perestam recused. 2. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation, & Site Plan Review(ZON2007-00134): 3324 Seaclaire Drive Vice Chairman Perestam returned to the dais. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief history and scope of the project. She explained that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they had heard any objections from the neighbor on Eaglehaven Court since the proposed project has been re-silhouetted. Assistant Planner Kim answered that she has received no objections from the neighbors regarding this project. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Lisa Vavic 3324 Seaclaire Drive (applicant) stated she was available to answer any questions. Joanne Antall 31316 Eaglehaven Circle stated that the question is what is the definition of"significant" and if"significant" should be considered in the eyes of the beholder. Planning commission Minutes September 25,2007 Page 3 Commissioner Lewis asked Ms. Antall if the photograph displayed by staff was an accurate depiction of the view from her property. Ms. Antall answered that she was with staff when the picture was taken and it is an accurate representation of her view. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Antall what she considered significant view impairment. Ms. Antall explained that she appreciated the Vavic lowered their proposed addition, however was still surprised at how tall the addition appears. She explained that her main viewing area is out over the Vavic home and was concerned about what will happen with the next proposed project and the one after that. She questioned when the impairment becomes significant not only for her but for other homeowners in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Antall if she had a greater concern about others building a two-story home than if this were the only one. Mrs. Antall answered that she had concerns that this is going to start a trend, noting that families that move into the neighborhood will want larger homes that will go up. Ed Gulian (architect) stated he has been working very closely with staff to make sure he was designing a home that is compatible with the neighborhood and has tried very hard to design something that made all of the neighbors happy. Lisa Vavic, (in rebuttal) also emphasized that she has worked very hard with her neighbors to design a home that has the least amount of impact on the neighbors. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam asked staff to comment on why they felt this proposed addition would not cause significant cumulative view impact Assistant Planner Kim explained that the homes located to the left and right of the project are both two-story homes, and therefore staff did not feel there would be a cumulative view impairment. Commissioner Lewis stated that he supported this project at the first meeting and still supports the project. He did not feel the project introduced any new architectural elements into the neighborhood and that the view impact it may cause was not significant. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation, and Site Plan Review as proposed by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Planning commission Minutes September 25,2007 Page 4 Commissioner Knight asked staff if the dome element was a feature that appeared in any of the twenty closest homes to the applicant's home. Assistant Planner Kim explained that there are other homes with a dome feature, however they are not located within the twenty closest homes, but rather are within the 500 foot radius. Commissioner Knight stated that the dome feature proposed is not within the neighborhood compatibility of the 20 nearest homes and the homes that do have the dome feature are at a much lower profile. He felt that this dome proposal does not fit the neighborhood and has a pop-up look to it. Commissioner Tetreault felt that compatibility issues may be present regarding the proposed dome. He explained that there might be less compatibility concerns if the feature was not so much a dome or a tower as opposed to a full width second story similar to the one located next door. He noted that a full width second story would block more ocean space for the neighbor upslope, however. He therefore felt that this design may be more of a compromise that he felt he could support. Regarding significant view impairment, he agreed it is a subjective matter, and in this situation if the addition were on the horizon or blocked any part of Catalina Island or blocked a view of the white water he would consider that significant view impairment. He noted that this proposal does none of those and therefore did not think there was significant view impairment. He stated that he could support this proposed addition. Vice Chairman Perestam stated that the Mediterranea neighborhood is very large and is extremely diverse in its architectural features. He therefore was not concerned that this architectural feature may not be in the closest twenty homes, but was found within the 500 foot radius. He also noted that there is a trade off in this situation between the architectural feature and preserving the view for the neighbors. He stated that he was in favor of the project. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-61 thereby approving the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation, and Site Plan Review was approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation Permit (ZON2006-00179)• 5329 Bayridge Road Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She explained that staff has several concerns with the proposal in regards to privacy, view impairment, cumulative view impairment, and the bulk and mass of the project. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny with prejudice the proposed application. Planning commission Minutes September 25,2007 Page 5 Commissioner Lewis stated that even though his home is not within the 500 foot radius and is eligible to vote on this matter, he considers this part of his neighborhood and will recuse himself from the vote. He left the dais. Commissioner Knight noted that in the staff report it was stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings for the Extreme Slope Permit, yet still recommended denial of the application, and asked for clarification. Assistant Planner Kim explained that because the Extreme Slope Permit was bundled with the other applications, staff considered the project as a whole and was therefore recommending denial. Director Rojas added that because staff was recommending denial with prejudice, the Planning Commission could separate out the Extreme Slope Permit if they felt it was appropriate. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Louis Tomaro (architect) explained that the subject lot is 9,500 square feet, but because of the extreme slope in the rear the owners are limited in what they can build on the lot. He displayed a 3-D animation to help depict the type of architecture proposed and how this proposed addition affects the neighbors. He pointed out several single story elements that were designed to open up views for the neighbors located across the street. She showed several features in his displays which he felt demonstrate architectural features which will soften the look of the house, which can't be seen with just the silhouette. He felt that the design complies with the neighborhood compatibility aspects of the City. Commissioner Karp asked the architect if he had considered excavating and lowering the height of the lot which will lower the height of the house. Mr. Tomaro answered that he had considered that, however he explained that he has already dropped the floor height of the proposed house down and that the house will slope down towards the rear of the lot. Susan Semelca 5329 Bayridge Road (applicant) explained that she and the architect have worked very closely with staff and that the proposed two-story home will be one of the smallest two-story homes in the neighborhood, noting there are twelve two-story homes in the tract, two of which were just approved within the last year. She felt her proposal represents significantly much less bulk and mass than the other two-story homes. She did not think the proposed structure significantly impaired views from the neighbor's homes. She disagreed with staff s finding that the view from 5338 Bayridge Road and the very small sliver of the San Gabriel Mountains that will be blocked. She stated that the owners concern was of the city light view that he would be losing, but pointed out that these lights are well below the 16 foot by right height limit. She stated Planning commission Minutes September 25,2007 Page 6 that she has overwhelming support from the neighborhood for the proposed project and asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff to clarify why the mountains are identified as a protected view. Director Rojas explained that the Municipal Code lists aspects that constitute a view. He explained that the Code states that a view which is protected shall not include vacant land that is developable under the Code and distant mountain area not normally visible. ' He stated that in the past there have been times when this is an issue of debate. He explained that staff's policy has been that there are certain mountains that are more visible than others as there are some mountains that are visible at times throughout the year and there are mountains that only appear on very clear days. He stated that staff determined the mountains seen in this view frame are not distant mountain areas not normally visible, meaning they are part of the protected view. Further, there is a portion over 16 feet that is impairing the mountain view. Commissioner Karp did not agree with staffs recommendation to deny this project with prejudice. He would like to see the applicant and architect work to redesign the project to see how much lower the structure can go by excavating the lot. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that his main concern is the size of the proposed house. He noted that this lot is only slightly over 9,000,square feet with an extreme slope on part of the lot, and the applicant is trying to put what amounts to 4,600 square feet on the lot. He appreciated that there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood, however noted that one is on a lot nearly twice as large as the applicants, and the majority of the other two-story homes are less than half of the size of this proposed home. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments, adding that this proposed home is out of scale with the others in the neighborhood. He also had concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Knight agreed, stating that the size of the home needs to be scaled down as it is currently out of proportion with the other homes in the neighborhood. He stated again that he felt the Extreme Slope Permit should be separated from the other applications, as he felt that application could be approved. Vice Chairman Perestam agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners, adding that he had some concern with denial with prejudice. Director Rojas explained that in this application there is a Height Variation requested for a portion of the home to be built over 16 feet in height. He stated that staff felt that anything built over 16 feet in height will cause view impairment. Therefore, if this Planning commission Minutes September 25,2007 Page 7 application were to be denied with prejudice, the applicant could not submit another height variation application for at least a year. However, the applicant could redesign and submit a new application at any time that doesn't require a height variation. Commissioner Knight agreed with staff that anything built over 16 feet in height would block a view. He stated that he would not be opposed to denying the project without prejudice, but would like to separate out the Extreme Slope Permit and deny that without prejudice. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he does not like to deny an application with prejudice without hearing from the applicant to hear their reactions to the comments made by the Planning Commissioners. Vice Chairman Perestam took a straw vote to see if the Commissioners would oppose any addition above 16 feet in height because of the view impairment of the mountains. Commissioners Karp, Knight, Tetreault stated that they would most likely oppose any project over 16 feet in height because of the view impairment. Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Perestam stated they were not sure they would oppose all proposed additions over 16 feet in height. Vice Chairman Perestam re-opened the public hearing. Louis Tomaro stated that he would like to have the opportunity to work with the neighbors, especially the one with the view impact, to see if there is anything that can be done to mitigate the concerns and return to the Planning Commission with a modified Height Variation request. Director Rojas noted that November 13th would be the first available meeting where this item could be heard, and a 90 day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act would be required from the applicant. Mr. Tomaro requested the 90 day extension. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight stated that he was open to allowing any applicant the opportunity to come back to the Planning Commission with possible alternatives, however he cautioned the applicant that the changes would have to be significant before he could approve them, as he has an issue with bulk and mass and the view. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to the November 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Lewis recused. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2007 Page 8 4. Annual report on the implementation of the Housina Element Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, briefly explaining the information provided in the report. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission direct staff to forward the City's annual report to the City Council. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve staff's recommendation to forward the report to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of Auqust 28, 2007 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for October 9, 2007 Given the light Agenda for the October 9th meeting, the Planning Commission verified with staff that the one item on the Agenda could wait until the second meeting in October. With that verification, the Commission unanimously agreed to cancel the October 9th meeting and adjourn to October 23, 2007. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Planning commission Minutes September 25,2007 Page 9