Loading...
PC MINS 20080226 Approved March 11, 2008 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 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. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the continued appeal hearing of the Planning Commission's decision on the view restoration case on Rolling Ridge Road is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 4th. He also reported that the appeal hearing of the Planning Commission's decision on the Height Variation on Bayridge Road is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 18th COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. Zon2006-00631): 32228 Schooner Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a history of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She explained the project as previously submitted and the revisions that have been made. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked staff what type of roofing material would be on the nearly flat portion of the proposed roof. Assistant Planner Kim stated that staff was not aware of the type of material being proposed, however the architect was present and could answer that question once the public hearing is opened. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they had a picture from the neighbor's residence showing the ridgeline of the original proposal and the ridgeline of the revised proposal. Assistant Planner Kim showed the picture requested, and explained that the ridgeline of the project has not been lowered, but moved closer to the neighbor's home which drops it lower in the view frame. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jure Sestich (architect) began by explaining the proposed roof material for the flatter section of the roof would be some type of rolled asphalt roofing similar to other roofs in the neighborhood. He noted that with the position of the roof to the street, that portion of the roof would not be seen. He explained that, as he noted at the last meeting, he could not lower the ridgeline any lower than it already is, so he pulled the ridge back towards the property, giving the neighbor more view over the home. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Sestich if he looked at any other ways to lower the ridgeline of the proposed residence to lessen the impact to the neighbor, such as lowering the grade of the property. Mr. Sestich explained that he talked to the owner about lowering the grade, however that would result in a completely different project. He stated that this project is attempting to put a second story addition on top of an existing structure rather than creating a whole new structure. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Sestich the proposed ceiling heights of both the first and second floors. Mr. Sestich answered that the ceiling heights on both the first and second floor will be eight feet. Vice Chairman Perestam asked if the chimney was at the minimum height allowed. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2008 Page 2 Mr. Sestich answered that it is just high enough to clear the ridgeline and meet code requirements. Paul Hobus (applicant) stated he has read the staff report and agrees with their findings and conditions. He stated that his architect did discuss with him the possibility of lowering the property and going subterranean. He noted that the floor of the home is currently at street level and he did not want to go below street level. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hobus if he had any objection to removing the tree that is visible from the neighbor's bedroom window. Mr. Hobus answered that, even though the tree is not an issue in terms of the project, he would be willing to remove the tree. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the other shrubbery seen on the property will be removed as part of the project. Mr. Hobus answered that the ficus will be trimmed down to the ridgeline. Prim Hamilton stated that she is the neighbor above whose view is being impacted. She stated that even though the applicant has moved the house back, the height has not changed and her ocean view is still impacted. She distrusted a picture she took from a sitting position in her living room, explaining that the view should be considered from a sitting position rather than a standing position. She stated that she enjoys viewing the small boat traffic on the ocean, which will be lost if the addition is allowed. Jure Sestich (in rebuttal) stated he had not been given the chance to see the picture Mrs. Hamilton distributed, and asked if he could see the picture. Mr. Sestich stated that the ridge has been lowered and moved back, noting that the original plan showed a ridge height of 18 feet and the current plan shows a ridge height of 17 '8". Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Sestich to clarify, as the staff report states that the ridge height has not been lowered, only moved back. Mr. Sestich clarified that the original proposal was to have a ridgeline at 17'8", however the actual flags on site were at 18 feet. The flags have been lowered and are now at the accurate height of 17'8". Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they were aware that the flags were originally placed at 18 feet and have since been lowered to 17'8". Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff had received a silhouette certification stating that the silhouette and flags had been placed at the proper height of 17'8" when the silhouette was originally erected. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2008 Page 3 Director Rojas clarified that the original project was reduced to 17'8" in height but no actual reduction in height has occurred since the last time the Commission discussed this project. Mr. Sestich stated that the current location of the flags accurately reflects the location of the proposed addition. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Sestich if he had explored a design using roof design without a center ridge. Mr. Sestich answered that the design originally used a center line ridge, however that ridge has now been offset. He explained that he explored other options, but they were not acceptable as the design did not look very pleasing, as they would create a type of shed roof. Director Rojas noted that Commissioner Tomblin was not at the original hearing for this item, and asked if he had read the minutes or watched the video from that original meeting so that he can participate in this hearing. Commissioner Tomblin answered that he had read the minutes from the meeting. Director Rojas stated that the photograph distributed by Mrs. Hamilton shows a view from a sitting position, however staff does their view analysis from a standing position as directed in the Guidelines. He stated that the only cases where staff would do a view analysis from a sitting position would be where a view can only be enjoyed from a sitting position. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that there are quite a few trees currently in the view area, and asked staff how much view will be opened up once those trees have been removed. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the trees currently take up nearly half of Mrs. Hamilton's total view. Commissioner Tetreault was unsure how much of an improvement in the view this revised plan would result in. He acknowledged the architect's concern that any other .changes to the roof would not be aesthetically pleasing, however if it came to a choice between architecturally pleasing lines versus a reduction in an ocean view, the Code favors the view. He felt that lowering the pitch of the roof all the way to the back wall would offer the greatest reduction in view impairment to the neighbor, and would like to see what kind of view would be gained by doing so. He noted that the architect stated this section of the roof cannot be seen from the street, and therefore he did not think that the change would make any difference in the visual appeal of the design. He stated that ocean views are very important in the City and that the Planning Commission has determined significant view impairment for views that are less impaired Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2008 Page 4 than this one. He felt it would be very helpful in determining the view impairment if some of the foliage was removed. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments, adding that it would be very helpful to the Planning Commission if some of the foliage were removed so that the view behind the foliage is opened up. Vice Chairman Perestam agreed, adding that in regards to the removal of the fruit tree, he felt that it was blocking a part of the same view and that it should be required to be trimmed or removed with the other vegetation. Commissioner Knight understood why lowering the grade on the property would not be a solution to this problem, and agreed with the other Commissioner's that removing the foliage to open up the neighbor's view would be very helpful to him in making his decision. He was also in favor of lowering the pitch of the roof to the rear wall, since that roof will not be seen from the street. He felt that there are different ways architecturally to hide this type of roof that will help make it more aesthetically pleasing. Chairman Gerstner asked the architect to return and asked him about this shed type of roof being discussed. He felt that to do this type of roof the ridge would be removed and the overall height of that section of the roof would go up, but not higher than any other section of the roof. He noted that there is some point where this roof will actually project into the view more, and asked Mr. Sestich if he knew what that point would be. Mr. Sestich stated that this is a discussion of inches, noting that a few inches makes quite a bit of difference in the size of a room, but questioned how a few inches of view 100 feet away of Catalina Island 22 miles away may not make much of a difference. He stated that the primary view of Catalina Island has been kept in tact and the discussion seems to be centered on the secondary view and how much of the secondary view comes into play. He felt that the only way to know would be to go through the exercise of changing the roof. Chairman Gerstner felt changing the roof may make the neighbor's view better from a standing position, or it may make the view worse from the seated position that the neighbor prefers. ,Commissioner Ruttenberg added that it would be very helpful for him to have the foliage on the property removed so that he could see what view that opens up for the neighbor. He added that may change what is considered significant view impairment caused by this proposed addition. Vice Chairman Perestam agreed. He acknowledged that the Planning Commission is supposed to make a decision not withstanding existing vegetation, but that sometimes it is very difficult when the foliage is there and is in the viewing area. Planning commission Minutes February 26,2008 Page 5 Mr. Sestich asked, if the trees are removed and there is more view exposed, this may make a difference in terms of what is being presented in terms of the ridge height. Chairman Gerstner explained there would be more view for the Planning Commissioners to consider. He noted that the significance is relative to the total view and right now the Commissioners are imagining how much total view there is without the trees there. Commissioner Knight added that he did not think the trees needed to be entirely removed, just brought down to the 16 foot level. Mr. Hobus referred to staffs picture and where staff has indicated the 16 foot level is and where he feels the 16 foot level is, and the discrepancy in the two. Director Rojas clarified that while staff has no reason to believe that the 16 foot level identified on the silhouette poles is incorrect, as it has been certified correct, due to the view angle one of the silhouette poles appears higher in the view frame. As a result, the 16 foot height line is not really a straight line as depicted on the photograph. The line actually bends, as is being corrected by Assistant Planner Kim. Vice Chairman Perestam moved to continue the public hearing to the March 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to make any adjustments to the ridgeline, remove or trim foliage, and for staff to clarify the 16 foot height measurement on the poles, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. Zon2008-00081): 30136 Via Rivera Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the revision proposed is to add two windows to the second story addition, and that staff's recommendation is to approve the revision as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Diane Stone (applicant) stated that she preferred the two windows be transparent windows, and the reason for the windows is for light, air, and energy efficiency. She stated there are several similar windows in the neighborhood on two story homes that look down into a neighboring residence. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that when the application for the second story addition originally came before the Planning Commission it included these two windows, but because of the objections from the neighbor, the windows were removed. Ms. Stone stated this was true, explaining that she also moved the structure back five feet for the neighbor's privacy. She felt that the original objection to the windows is not Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2008 Page 6 the same as this objection, since the structure is farther away from the property line than originally proposed. Chairman Gerstner asked Ms. Stone if she had read the Resolution and if she agrees with the conditions or if she has any proposed changes. Ms. Stone answered that she would like the conditions removed and that the Planning Commission approve what she requested as is. Chairman Gerstner asked if the neighbor has commented on transparent windows. Director Rojas stated that there is a letter from the neighbor in the staff report asking the Planning Commission to deny the request for transparent windows. Commissioner Knight stated that he agreed with staff concerning the privacy issues when this addition was brought before the Planning Commission originally, and he did not think that anything has changed with this application for the two windows. Commissioner Knight moved to approved staff's recommendations as, conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Diane Stone requested clarification, in that she did not think her neighbor had an objection to the windows being openable. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that to be able to open the windows defeated the purpose of requiring they be translucent for privacy. Director Rojas added that at the first hearing staff recommended the windows be translucent, however the Planning Commission raised the question about being openable and privacy concerns. Since the item was continued, staff was going to then require the windows be translucent and fixed, but since the windows were then taken off of the plans the issue was dropped. Commissioner Tetreault noted that both of the proposed windows are in bathrooms, and given that those rooms generally can be humid and need ventilation, that there should be ways that a window can be translucent but possibly top hinged so that it can only crank open a limited distance. Chairman Gerstner suggested a type of window that is fixed on the top and is an awning window on the bottom that can be cranked open, and that the entire window be translucent. Commissioner Tetreault suggested a condition that the windows be specified to the Director's approval, since the Director understands what type of windows the Planning Commission would like to see installed. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2008 Page 7 Commissioner Knight moved to amend the motion that the windows be translucent and that some part of the window be openable at the bottom third for ventilation in a way that does not affect privacy, to the Director's satisfaction, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. P.C. Resolution 2008-09 was adopted as modified, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00406): 1872 Homeworth Dr Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the'need for the Height Variation. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the Height Variation as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jure Sestich (architect) explained that this is quite a large lot and can easily accommodate a single story home. He noted that building a house this size, however, caused the peaks of the roof to come up a little higher, which is the reason for the Height Variation. He explained that there are no views from this part of the neighborhood and he could see no privacy issues. He felt that the articulation added to the home will keep the home from looking bulky or massive. Vice Chairman Perestam asked if the proposed chimney is at the minimum height allowed by code. Mr. Sestich answered that it will be at the minimum allowed height that will still meet code. Nick Rugnetta (property owner) explained that he and his family have outgrown their home and look forward to building a larger home on the property. He stated that he has discussed this plan with all of his neighbors and has received no objections from any of them. Commissioner Tetreault commended the architect and homeowner for designing a single story residence that fits so well into the neighborhood. His main concern was how construction vehicles and materials would get to the house and where they would park, as it is a very narrow street. Vice Chairman Perestam also commended the architect and homeowner on what they have proposed. He agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comment about the narrow cul-de-sac street and the concern of how construction material and trucks would manage. Commissioner Knight asked staff if there was any way to condition this approval regarding the construction vehicles. Planning commission Minutes February 26,2008 Page 8 Director Rojas answered that there really isn't a way to add such a condition, noting that this type of construction is considered a short-term impact to the neighborhood. He noted that there is a standard condition that has been added that the construction site shall be maintained in a safe and orderly manner, which will give the Building Official some discretion at the site. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-10 thereby approving the Height Variation as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of February 12, 2008 The minutes were continued to March 11, 2008 as recommended by staff. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of March 11, 2008 Director Rojas noted that an item will be added to the Agenda to select a Vice Chairman for the Planning Commission. The Pre-agenda was unanimously approved as modified. Commissioner Tetreault asked for clarification as to when a public hearing should be closed and when the public hearing should be left open. Director Rojas explained that this will be a clarification on a future agenda, however he noted that the City Attorney has directed that the best practice is to not close the public hearing until absolutely sure a decision is going to be made. He suggested that if a public hearing is closed after the speakers have finished, and the Planning Commission makes a decision to continue the item, to make a motion to re-open the public hearing and continue the item. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Planning commission Minutes February 26,2008 Page 9