Loading...
PC MINS 20080527 Approved August 12 08 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 27, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, Chairman Perestam. Commissioner Gerstner arrived at 7:22 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to move Agenda Item No. 3 to be heard after Agenda Item No. 6. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision involving a Height Variation on Bayridge Road is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 3, 2008. Director Rojas distributed one items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 4. Chairman Perestam and Commissioner Ruttenberg reported that they had met with the applicant for Agenda Item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Encroachment Permit & Sign Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00138): Beachview Drive and Seahill Drive Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-18 conditionally approving the Encroachment Permit and Sign Permit, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (5-0). 2. Encroachment Permit & Sign Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00050): Crest Road and Highridge Road P.C. Resolution 2008-19 was adopted thereby conditionally approving the Encroachment Permit and Sign Permit (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit & Grading Permit (ZON2007-00182): 31110-31176 Hawthorne Blvd., and 31212-31246 Palos Verdes Drive South Commissioner Lewis disclosed that one of the speakers is a former member of an organization which he appeared before several years ago. He noted that he has not spoken to this person about this project and did not think this caused any conflict of interest or bias and he could participate in the public hearing. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project and the different components of the proposed revision to the Conditional Use Permit, the Variance, and the Grading Permit. Regarding the proposed Trader Joe's, he stated that staff was concerned with the bulk and mass of the building, and the overall design of the structure, as well as concerns with view and view impairment to the surrounding neighbors. He discussed these concerns and possible mitigations for the concerns. In regards to parking, he explained a traffic analysis was submitted, reviewed and approved by the City's consulting Traffic Engineer. Also included was a parking analysis and although the project is deficient by four spaces, the parking analysis concluded that as a whole the demand for parking will be less than the spaces provided. Therefore, staff believed the parking plan could be approved. He discussed the need for the Variance and the Grading Permit and that all appropriate findings could be made to recommend approval. Finally, he noted a request to modify a condition with regards to providing access to an adjacent vacant property to the south. He explained the history of the condition of approval, and that staff feels that in light of the previous analysis, the gap in the wall should be closed off to create a solid wall. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposed project and direct the applicant to redesign and lower the height of the proposed Trader Joe's building and continue the public hearing to June 24, 2008. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 2 Commissioner Knight stated that it has been his experience that a Trader Joe's generates quite a bit of business, and asked if the traffic analysis took into account the special type of business this is in terms of possibly generating more traffic per square foot of structure than other commercial uses. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the traffic engineer will look at the type of use going into the structure, and not who runs the business. Commissioner Knight asked staff to explain their rationale for recommending approval of the Variance for the setbacks. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the existing Golden Lotus was built under the authority of the County and allowed it to be built with the setbacks seen today. From a staff perspective, the existing non-conforming setbacks do not cause an adverse impact and extending this non-conformity to the market building doesn't intensify the non- conforming situation. Commissioner Knight noted that the current plan shows sandbags which block access to Palos Verdes Drive West and impede the traffic circulation in the parking lot. Senior Planner Schonborn agreed, but explained that the NPDES details will be worked out during the plan check process in building and safety. Vice Chairman Lewis asked staff to clarify where the existing gap is in the wall. Senior Planner Schonborn clarified the section of the wall near the Admiral Risty where the gap is currently located. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to clarify how a traffic study takes into account the different uses of the buildings in the shopping center. Senior Planner Schonborn explained there are different parking requirements for different types of uses, noting parking for a restaurant is based on the seating area, while the parking for a grocery store/market and a school have different ratios. Director Rojas added that the Code has parking requirements for different uses, however it doesn't assume that some uses are happening while others are not, and that is why the parking study is done to determine peak uses to come up with a shared plan. Chairman Perestam asked if this area will be considered built out if this project is approved, noting that the parking will be a problem if more square footage is approved in the future. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that any decisions will be based on the proposal and use, and the applicant will have to prove there is ample parking. He stated that there really is no threshold where the center is considered built out. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 3 Commissioner Tomblin asked how extensive the traffic study was, and if it not only looked at traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive South, but also the ingress to and egress from the shopping center. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that the traffic study not only looked at traffic at various intersections but on site circulation as well. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Hannibal Petrossi stated that he has been working with this shopping center for many years, and every project they do has an issue with parking. He explained that the water table is very high on this property and there are several areas on the property not suitable for underground parking. He noted that the underground parking that is being proposed will be primarily for employees of the shopping center, so that the majority of spaces in the lot can be for the public. He also explained that there will be an extensive remodel of the existing two-story building, which will include a face lift and new landscaping. Commissioner Knight noted that the elevator exits onto Hawthorne Blvd, and asked Mr. Petrossi why it was designed that way. Mr. Petrossi explained that the elevator leads to the underground parking area, which is envisioned for the employees of the shopping center, and he felt this location would be the most convenient for the employees. He noted that the exit is not onto Hawthorne, but to the side into a paved area. Rita Fuentes 7100 Via del Mar stated that from her home the Trader Joe's will significantly block her view of the ocean. She asked that the Planning Commission take a close look at the height of the proposed building, as well as the traffic and parking. She asked that the Commission look at the noise impacts, noting that even now at twelve and one o'clock there are trucks delivering to the restaurants in the center. She did not think this proposal was a very positive addition to the City. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Fuentes if she hears the deliveries that take place at night. Ms. Fuentes answered that she hears the deliveries to the shopping center. She was very concerned because the deliveries she heard are just for the pizza restaurant, and she questioned what the deliveries would sound like with such a large market like Trader Joe's. Commissioner Gerstner asked Ms. Fuentes if she has a view of Catalina Island. Ms. Fuentes answered that she does not have a view of Catalina Island, but does have a panoramic view of the ocean and coastline. Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Page 4 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Fuentes how long she has lived in her home. Ms. Fuentes answered that she has lived in her home for over 20 years. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Fuentes what it was like at the center when the old Safeway market was there. Ms. Fuentes answered that it was different, because all of the other buildings were not there and it was just the large market, Admiral Risty, Golden Lotus and a parking lot. Commissioner Ruttenberg looked at a picture taken from Ms. Fuentes residence, and questioned if the proposed Trader Joe's would be blocking a significant portion of her view. Mrs. Fuentes felt that it would block a major portion of her view, and invited the Planning Commissioners to come to her home to observe the view. Greg O'Brien (president of Palos Verdes Sunset Ridge HOA) stated that the association has taken a survey of its members as to their opinion regarding the proposed project and their concerns seem to mirror those of staff. He explained that the only access from Via del Mar onto Hawthorne Boulevard is from Via Rivera, and currently it is difficult to make a left turn onto Hawthorne Blvd., especially in the morning. He felt this would be accentuated with the building of Trader Joe's. He felt that Trader Joe's will attract quite a few shoppers from this City and surrounding cities, and asked staff to take this into consideration. He expressed concerns with the potential noise, congestion, and loss of views. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if staff's conditions and restrictions and design recommendations were all implemented, would the HOA still be opposed to the project. Mr. O'Brien stated that the HOA is not opposed to the project, but rather to certain aspects of the project that he hopes can be mitigated. Ed Shea 25 Via San Remo (President of Villa Capri HOA) stated that earlier this year a pedestrian access was cut in the privacy wall that separates Villa Capri from Golden Cove, which is in violation of the current conditions of approval. He asked the Planning Commission to adopt staff's recommendation to restore the wall so there is no pedestrian access through the wall. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Shea if the HOA would oppose a substantial gate with a lock that was only available to the veterinary hospital, and the hours of access were limited to business hours only. Mr. Shea answered that the HOA would still oppose such a suggestion, explaining that the reason for the privacy wall was to mitigate some undesirable noise and loitering. Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Page 5 John Safyurtlu stated he was representing his parents who live at 31055 Via Rivera. He felt the proposed project was much too bulky and massive for the site and would impair a significant portion of the view from his parent's home. He felt that Rancho Palos Verdes is a community that people work hard to live in and enjoy their views, and the Planning Commission and staff should be working to inspire residents to put more money into their property through improvements and additions. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Safyurtlu if all the design change and suggestions made by staff were implemented, would he still oppose the project. Mr. Safyurtlu answered that they would still object to the project. He talked about the traffic going in and out of the center, the traffic pooling in front of their home, and the noise the delivery trucks would make. Cassie Jones stated that she works at the Golden Cove Shopping Center. She stated that she has never been to a Trader Joe's that wasn't crowded or a Trader Joe's parking lot that wasn't chaos. She questioned why currently there are times when there are absolutely no parking spaces to be found at the center, yet the center is not fully occupied. She noted that the parking lot is used for the surrounding amenities, explaining that people will park their car at the center while they ride their bicycles around the peninsula, or take a commuter bus to work, or walk their dog along Oceanfront Estates. She was in favor of allowing the walkway to remain in the wall, and was in favor of having a gate with a key to access the adjacent vacant lot. She also suggested changing the angle of the wall so that the access would be more toward the Admiral Risty. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Ms. Jones if she objected to limiting the hours of access to business hours. Ms. Jones answered that is the only time she would use the access. Hannibal Petrossi (in rebuttal) stated that there has been a lot of discussion on the parking, and pointed out that the current parking has 298 spaces and the new proposal is for 356 spaces. He stated he is creating an underground parking area where cars will not be exposed to sun and rain and creating better circulation in the lot. He therefore did not think parking and circulation should be an issue. Commissioner Tomblin was concerned that the employees of the center would not use the underground parking, which would take away parking spaces from the public. He had not read or heard how this employee parking would be enforced by the management. Secondly, he expressed concerns about how the traffic would enter and exit the shopping center. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 6 Mr. Petrossi stated that he has worked with the traffic consultant who feel the ingress and egress is satisfactory. He pointed out that the busiest times at Trader Joe's will be on weekends when the school is not in session. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Petrossi if he had been to the neighbors' homes to see how the proposed structure might impair their views and asked what he will be willing to do to help mitigate any view impairment. Mr. Petrossi answered that he has not been to the neighboring homes, and will be very willing to work with the neighbors and staff to mitigate view impairment. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Petrossi how he felt about staff's proposal to lower the height of the proposed Trader Joe's by three feet. Mr. Petrossi answered that he will not rule out any options, but also has to consider the needs of Trader Joe's. Director Rojas noted that he had received another speaker slip, and asked the Planning Commission if they would like to hear an additional speaker. Suganya Gibbs 31031 Via Rivera stated that his view will now be of Trader Joe's rather than Catalina Island. He questioned why the height of the Trader Joe's cannot be the height of the current restaurant. He stated that there is already a great problem with the school traffic, and felt this proposal will only increase the traffic problems. He discussed what he felt were dangerous conditions in exiting the shopping center. Commissioner Knight stated that he has personal experience with the afternoon traffic leaving Point Vicente Elementary School turning left on Hawthorne Boulevard. He explained that because that is a difficult turn many people use the left turn lane on Hawthorne into the Golden Cove Center as a U-turn access. He asked if the traffic study took into consideration this type of traffic pattern and the possible need to make the left-turn lane at Hawthorne and Palos Verdes Drive West longer. Senior Planner Schonborn did not know if this was taken into account in the traffic study. .Vice Chairman Lewis stated that it has been his experience on the Planning Commission that if an application for a new home had this many issues and problems, staff would most likely recommend denial without prejudice. He questioned why staff recommended continuance rather than denial. Director Rojas explained that, unlike a new home, this project has many other technical issues involved such as traffic studies, which have been looked at for months. Staff feels that the sole issue at this point is that the building needs to be reduced in height. Given that staff felt reducing the building height would not impact the functionality of the Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 7 building, staff recommended continuance of the project for the applicant to simply address this one issue. Chairman Perestam asked if there is anything the City can do to alleviate the unofficial "park and ride" situation that occurs in the parking lot at Golden Cove. Director Rojas suggested setting parking time limits in the parking lot, such as two-hour parking. Senior Planner Schonborn added that the PV Max has indicated that the boarding at that location averages only one or two boarders per day. Chairman Perestam pointed out that the Metro bus line also has a stop at the center. Director Rojas stated that staff does not feel the park and ride causes much of a demand on the parking at Golden Cove, but added that staff is aware of the issue of people parking at the center and riding their bikes or going on to do other recreational uses in the City. However, he felt this activity happens more on the weekends when the school is not in session and the parking lot can handle the extra cars. Chairman Perestam asked if the current Conditional Use Permit limits the delivery hours, as this seems to be a concern of some of the residents. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the current CUP does have a condition that limits deliveries of commercial goods and supplies to Monday through Sundays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Director Rojas stated that any deliveries outside of those hours would be handled by Code Enforcement staff, who would write a letter to the property owners once any complaints have been received. Chairman Perestam asked if staff can get any information from the sheriff's department on the number of traffic accidents that have occurred near the Golden Cove Center in the past five years. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that he would contact the Sheriff's Department and the Public Works Department for this information. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was any reason the under ground parking could not be expanded. Director Rojas answered that from staff's perspective there was no reason given the conditions of the parking study, however it would be a more appropriate question for the property owner. He added that that one of staff's goals is to minimize impacts and disruptions caused by construction to the tenants and customers, and creating a larger underground parking structure would increase the temporary disruption. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing, as recommended by staff, to the meeting of June 24, 2008 to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the Planning Commission's and staff's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that this is a case where the owner has a right to build up to 16 feet in height, and anything over that is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. He noted, however, that the architect has stated the owners are willing to work with staff and the neighbors to find ways to mitigate the concerns. He felt that there were concerns with parking, however he noted that there will be 81 new parking spaces created, and that because of the different peak hours of usage the proposal may improve and alleviate situations that are currently a problem with the parking. Regarding traffic, he felt that he will have to rely on the experts to give him the facts. He added that Golden Cove has been in existence longer than most of the neighbors have lived in their homes, and when these people bought their homes they knew they were buying close to a shopping center. He felt that the shopping center also has rights, and those rights need to be balanced and considered along with the neighbors' views. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg. He added that it was important to him for the applicant to work with the neighbors regarding the view issues. He felt that with the new homes built in the area and the upgrades and improvements to the Interpretive Center, this can be a well placed and successful shopping center. He stated that one of the elements of a successful shopping center is that customers are comfortable entering and exiting. He suggested looking into a right hand turn lane on Hawthorne Blvd. to help guide the traffic into the shopping center as well as a longer left turn lane at the end of Hawthorne Blvd. He felt that more underground parking is the key to the success of the center, even though he realized that it would cause more inconvenience during construction. He felt that in addition to providing more traffic, it would contribute to a better traffic flow and may solve the loading dock / delivery problems. Commissioner Knight pointed out that this area is zoned CN and one of the goals is to serve the community needs. He felt that a Trader Joe's would serve the community needs and liked the concept of having a Trader Joe's at this location. However, he shared the other concerns of view, bulk, and mass of the proposed building. He didn't see anything in the plans to indicate that reducing the height, bulk, and mass would diminish the functionality of the building. He did not agree with staff's analysis in terms of the Variance. He didn't think that existing non-conforming structures in the center that were built before City incorporation is an extraordinary or unusual circumstance for the project. He stated he would like to see on the plans areas in the parking lot that are dedicated for shopping cart drop off. He asked for a clarification of the TC-1 reinforcement for the construction equipment, as he did not want to see any metal grates. He also wanted to see clarification on the access plan for how people enter the shopping center. Finally, he wanted to find a resolution to the wall issue with the animal hospital. He suggested a locking solid gate could be installed as a compromise. Planning commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 9 Vice Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Knight in terms of the gate issue and the Variance. He stated that he could not make the finding 1, 2, or 3 for the Conditional Use Permit. He did not think the site was adequate for this type of store, he had serious concerns with the traffic, and he was very concerned with the neighbors' views. He asked that the area be re-flagged should the applicant choose to lower the height of the building. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he generally agreed with the comments from the other Commissioners. He was in favor of a solid gate in the wall near the animal hospital, with use restricted to business hours. He felt that if residents at Villa Capri were still unhappy then possibly another wall could be built on the vacant lot to help screen the activity from the residents at Villa Capri. He was happy to see the proposed underground parking, adding that directing employees of the Center to use the underground parking was an exceptional solution to the parking problems. He didn't think the Trader Joe's should be any larger or taller than it needs to be to accommodate its needs. He asked that the ingress and egress at the shopping center should be looked at and improved if possible. Chairman Perestam felt that this has been an underutilized shopping center for many, many years and it's possible that portions of the community have become comfortable with that. However, this is an attempt to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a commercially zoned area in the City. He shared the concerns of the other Commissioners and was anxious to see the redesign at the next meeting. The motion to continue the public hearing to June 24, 2008 was approved, (6-0). 5. Annual review of View Restoration Permit No. 203 3632 Vigilance Drive Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, reviewing the original decision and which trees were to be trimmed, laced, or removed. He stated that the language that was adopted required that a review be performed by the Planning Commission no less than one year from the trimming date in regards to the maintenance schedule for the Monterey pine tree only. He stated that staff believes the annual tree trimming cycle is appropriate and no revisions to the tree trimming cycle are necessary. However, if the Planning Commission is inclined to amend the conditions of approval relating to the maintenance schedule for the Monterey pine, they may do so. He reviewed the alternatives suggested by staff in the staff report. Director Rojas reminded the Planning Commission that a decision on this view restoration case has already been made, and the Planning Commission is not here to re-hear this item. He stated that this item is before the Planning Commission to look at the maintenance schedule of this one particular tree, the Monterey pine, and it is important that the Planning Commission stay focused on this one issue at hand. Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Page 10 Commissioner Gerstner stated that the discussion before the Planning Commission is for the Monterey pine only, and in looking at the photographs he could see no growth from the Monterey pine in the last year. He therefore felt that the current maintenance schedule was appropriate. He added that he may be willing to extend it to every two years, but noted that every 18 months would be problematic as that would cause trimming to occur in months that may not be beneficial to the tree. In looking at staff's photograph, Commissioner Ruttenberg noted some branches on the Monterey pine which he felt were below the ocean horizon line and could still be trimmed, and asked why they weren't trimmed and aren't part of the maintenance schedule. Director Rojas answered that the tree was originally ordered to be heavily laced, and care had to be given not to create an unsightly or unstable tree. Thus, staff determined the tree to be in compliance to the trimming order. He stated that the condition required that selected branches be removed, and therefore there was a reason to leave some lower branches on the tree to provide some stability. Vice Chairman Lewis asked staff, if in one year the tree has not grown and doesn't need trimming, is the foliage owner obligated to trim the tree anyway. He asked if the requirement is that the tree be trimmed every year or is the requirement that the view be protected. Director Rojas stated that the way the condition is written it says the foliage owner shall heavily lace the entire tree on an annual basis. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he would not favor increasing the length of time to 18 months or 2 years between trimmings, and preferred to leave the trimming schedule on the existing annual trimming cycle. Chairman Perestam agreed that the annual trimming schedule should remain, noting that some times a tree may take some time to get over the shock of a cutting, and once they do, they can grow at a rapid rate. Commissioner Knight asked staff to confirm that the issue is whether the Monterey pine's annual trimming cycle is appropriate and not whether the lower branches of the pine needs to be trimmed more or less. Senior Planner Alvarez again clarified and reminded the Planning Commissioners that what is before them is only the trimming schedule for the Monterey pine and not how the tree or any other foliage on the property was trimmed. He explained that on April 18, 2007 staff determined that the tree owner had heavily laced the Monterey pine tree and removed the branches as ordered by the Planning Commission. The applicant was given the opportunity to challenge this decision to the Planning Commission, but chose not to do so. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 11 Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Ginette Aelonv (applicant) stated that she did not feel her view has been restored to the degree she thought it would after the Planning Commission decision. Yossef Aelonv (applicant) explained that when the decision on how to trim the tree was made there was much concern that the trimming would harm the tree. He stated that although they do have the view of Catalina Island back, they are still not seeing portions of the ocean. He commented that since the tree seems to be healthy after the trimming he was hoping to have a larger view restored. Paul Kuliis (foliage owner) stated that he trimmed the tree as directed by staff and the tree is compliant. He did not feel the tree has grown since the trimming. He added that he has been working with staff, and has complied with any requests made by staff. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Chairman Perestam asked staff if they monitor the annual tree trimming and will check the tree for compliance. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that staff will leave the trimming and maintenance to the foliage owner, however staff is always available to the applicant in the event that a foliage owner doesn't perform the annual maintenance. Commissioner Ruttenberg did not think he got what he thought he was voting for in the original public hearing for this application. He felt there are still too many Monterey pine tree branches where the ocean is and there are areas of the tree that still block Catalina Island. Chairman Perestam added that there are three branches remaining that he feels impact the view, however he was aware that this hearing was not to address that issue. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to approve staff's recommendation, via minute order, to determine that the annual trimming maintenance schedule for one Monterrey pine at 3642 Vigilance Drive is adequate, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (6-0). 6. Housing Element Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, summarizing what changes were made and what additional issues were addressed in the draft Housing Element per the request made by the State. He also reported that staff has compiled an Environmental Assessment and circulated the document to the State as well as all of the relevant public agencies and has determined that a Negative Declaration can be adopted for the Housing Element amendment. Therefore, staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution therefore recommending that the City Council certify Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Page 12 the Negative Declaration and approve the General Plan amendment for the Housing Element, which will then be forwarded on to the State agencies for final approval. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-20 recommending that the city Council certify a Negative Declaration for the Housing Element and adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-21 recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to the City's Housing Element, thereby approving the final draft Housing Element, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (6-0). 3. Height Variation & Grading Permit (ZON2008-00193): 5338 Bayridge Road Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he would recuse himself from hearing this item, noting that while not required to, he felt that his residence is in close proximity to the project. Commissioner Gerstner stated that his residence is within the 500 foot radius and therefore he must recuse himself, and left the dais. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation and Grading Permit. She stated that staff was not able to make the neighborhood compatibility finding because of the proposed bulk and mass of the project. She noted that since the original submittal the applicant has communicated with and worked with staff diligently to address this issue. She explained several of the modifications to address staff's concerns. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Stacy Martin (applicant) stated that he has been working very closely with staff for some time and has taken all of staff's feedback and incorporated it into his plans. He explained several of the modifications that he has made. He explained that all of his neighbors have had input on the current design and all of the neighbors are happy with the design. He noted that there are several homes in the neighborhood that are very different from others in terms of design and the front fagade. He stated that staff was able to make all of the findings but one, which is neighborhood compatibility. He feels he has tried to match up with everything in the neighborhood and the only issue is the 14 foot kitchen area he has tried to soften in every way possible. Lance Grindel 5337 Bayridge Road stated he is the engineer for the project. He felt that the architectural design softens the look of the house from the street. He acknowledged that this house is in the middle of the block and is a little larger, however he felt that this neighborhood is going to be changing and someone has to be the first to do it. Commissioner Knight noted a 2:12 roof pitch indicated on the plans, and asked what type of roofing material would be used. Mr. Grindel answered that the roofing material had not yet been selected. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 13 Susan Smelka 5329 Bayridge Road stated she was in support of the project, noting that it will raise property values for everyone in the neighborhood. She stated that there are many homes in the tract that are remodeling and the trend is now away from the smaller, older homes. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff why the smaller rear yard setback was allowed to remain. Assistant Planner Kim explained that it could remain since less than 50 percent of interior and exterior walls combined are being demolished. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he could support the project as currently designed. Commissioner Knight stated that he agreed with staff's concerns in terms of the introduction of this design with its bulk and mass into the neighborhood. He also noted that this is one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood and they're proposing to build one of the biggest homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Tomblin felt that the fact that there was no opposition speaking at the meeting speaks well for the applicant. He noted, however, that he had concerns with the cumulative result of approving the project. He explained that he is concerned with the bulk and mass of the house and the idea that more of this type of design may be proposed for the neighborhood. He pointed out that there is a house across the street from this project with flags and a silhouette. Director Rojas clarified that the house across the street was already before the Planning Commission and had been denied, and will be heard on appeal by the City Council. Chairman Perestam felt that the applicant has done a good job in balancing all of the different things that are going on in the neighborhood. He felt that the project pushes the limit in terms of square footage, however he was comfortable with the project and supported the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt alternative No. 2 of the staff report, thereby approving the Height Variation and Grading Permit as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (3-1-2) with Commissioner Knight dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner and Vice Chairman Lewis recused. Director Rojas stated that a Resolution will be presented to the Planning Commission on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 14 7. Pre-agenda for the meeting of June 10, 2008 The pre-agenda was unanimously approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2008 Page 15