Loading...
PC MINS 20090324 Approved April 28 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the March 17, 2009 meeting, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation on the proposed code amendment related to the CL zoning district and continued the item to May 5, 2009. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence related to Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Tomblin reported that he met with Lois Karp and Tom Redfield related to the proposed Marymount project. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Reconsideration of Height Variation, Grading Permit& Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00593): 5 Cayuse Lane Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining that the applicant appealed the previous Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The applicant also submitted revised plans for a smaller residence to address the neighborhood compatibility issues. Due to the revised plans, the City Council did not take action on the appeal and remanded the revised project to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. He reviewed the revised project and compared it to the project previously denied by the Planning Commission. He explained that several neighbors remain concerned that the revised project remains out of character with the immediate neighborhood; however staff noted that the mere fact that this is a larger two story residence does not mean that it is automatically deemed inconsistent with the character of surrounding residences. He stated that in the past the Planning Commission has approved larger two-story homes in neighborhoods that are predominately single story in nature when it was found that the architectural style and design of the home, and other factors, served to offset the project's apparent bulk and mass. He stated the revised project provides setbacks that are substantially larger than the minimum required and the lot coverage is below the maximum allowed. He stated that staff believes the reduction of the project by 596 square feet constitutes a significant reduction in the size of the project. However, he also noted that this is a qualitative assessment open to interpretation by the neighbors and the Commission. He also explained that the purported financial hardship the applicant has stated she bears in the development of this project has had no bearing on staffs recommendations previously or at this time. He concluded by stating that staff was able to make the necessary findings for the Height Variation and Grading Permit. In regards to the Conditional Use Permit, the proposed project complies with all of the City's standards for second dwelling units, with the exception of the requirement for the connection to a public sanitary sewer. Staff believes all applicable findings can be made to allow this deviation. Staff is suggesting conditioning the approval of the second dwelling unit so that one garage space is maintained in perpetuity for the second unit and that there are restrictions placed upon the ownership and occupancy of the unit to maintain consistency with the second dwelling unit standards of the Development Code. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the revised project. Commissioner Knight noted that the project has been reduced in size, yet the lot .coverage has increased. He asked staff to explain this discrepancy. Associate Planner Fox explained that there may have been a miscalculation of lot coverage on the original plans presented to the City. Commissioner Knight asked if there was a reason a Conditional Use Permit is being applied for rather than a Variance in regards to the non-compliance of the second unit being hooked up to a public sewer. Planning Commission Minutes March 24,2009 Page 2 Associate Planner Fox explained that Variances are not granted for uses, but rather for a variation in physical development standards. Further, the Code specifies that if a second dwelling unit meets all of the development standards it is approvable administratively through a Site Plan Review, and if it doesn't it goes through a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the only reason there is a Conditional Use Permit for this second unit is because of the lack of the sewer system. Associate Planner Fox stated that was correct. Commissioner Ruttenberg discussed the size of the home and comparisons with the 20 closest homes. He noted that 22 Cayuse is quite a bit larger than the other homes in the neighborhood, and asked staff to discuss this home. Associate Planner Fox stated that as far as the City is concerned it is a single family residence, however it is licensed with the State as a Residential Care Facility for approximately 10 residents. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the Planning Commission were to look at this residence as a regular single family residence and not take into consideration that it is a Residential Care Facility. Associate Planner Fox stated that was correct. Chairman Lewis asked, if the project were approved, would the covenant language for the second unit come before the Commission for review. Associate Planner Fox answered that it was staffs intent to not bring that specific language back to the Commission for review. He stated that the covenant will be reviewed by the Director and City Attorney for content. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Shakil Patel (architect) felt the project was explained by staff very clearly and is available to answer any questions from the Commissioners. He stated that he and the .owner are agreeable to all of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the structure size of 5,911 square feet included the large trellis. Mr. Patel answered that 5,911 is the actual building size. Laura Goddard (applicant) stated that this is to be her family home and she hoped the Planning Commission would approve the project. Planning Commission Minutes March 24,2009 Page 3 Margaret Moulding (7 Cayuse Lane) stated her letter that has been attached to the staff report. She felt this large house and design are not compatible with the neighborhood, as the existing two-story homes are nestled into the hillside or built down in the canyon and present a single-story appearance from the road. She stated this project is a two- story home proposed to be built on a pad that is well above the driveway, and it will therefore loom over the neighborhood. She asked that the Commission deny the proposed height variation. David Moulding (7 Cayuse Lane) questioned the staff report which states the proposed house is 85 percent larger than the average house in the neighborhood. He felt a much more relevant comparison would be to compare the size of the home to those on the abutting lots. By doing this comparison, the proposed design is 150 percent larger than 1 Cayuse Lane, 93 percent than 3 Cayuse, 125 percent larger than 7 Cayuse, and 97 percent larger than 9 Cayuse. In discussing compatibility, he noted this proposed house has seven bedrooms, six bathrooms, a library, office, living room, and media/family room. He stated that no matter how you outfit the exterior, the house has significantly more scale, mass and bulk than the much smaller houses on the adjacent lots. He therefore asked the Commission to deny the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Moulding, if the project were proposed at the same size as the largest of the twenty houses, which is 5,485 square feet, would he still be opposed to the project. Mr. Moulding answered that he would prefer a home at 4,000 to 4,500 square feet on this lot, as this is a particularly difficult lot to build on. He noted the steep incline at the rear of the property as well as the easements on the lot. La Von Malin (9 Cayuse Lane) did not think 22 Cayuse Lane should be included when comparing the size of the homes in the neighborhood, as it is a care facility. She stated that the neighborhood is rural in nature, and this proposed residence will change the look of the entire neighborhood. She felt if the proposed height variation is granted to such a self-serving application it will only be the beginning of the end to this rural community. Devlon Malin stated what makes this neighborhood so special is the rural, open, and quiet atmosphere. He stated the homes in the neighborhood are centered on large .properties with large sections of land between each home. He felt that the subject property is different from the others in the neighborhood, and there is a reason it has been vacant for so long. He stated the building pad on this property is almost up on a pedestal above the other properties in the neighborhood, as almost the entire property is set up against a steep hillside. He did not think the applicant had made substantial changes in the size and scale of the project, as requested by the Planning Commission at the last public hearing. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the project. Mr. Patel (in rebuttal) stated that there is a substantial change in the footprint of the building, the lot coverage is substantially less, and all of the required setbacks per the Planning Commission Minutes March 24,2009 Page 4 zoning code have almost been doubled in size. He stated that the house meets all of the provisions of the City's codes and building codes and should therefore be approved. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Patel if the property has been re-silhouetted to reflect the most current proposed design. Mr. Patel answered that the property has been reflagged. Commissioner Perestam asked staff if all of the homes in the neighborhood are on septic systems. Associate Planner Fox answered that it was his understanding that all of the homes in the immediate neighborhood are on septic. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff how they were going to be able to enforce the condition in the conditions of approval that states one parking space in the garage must be dedicated for the second unit. He was concerned that if the project is approved that there may be a condition that may be impossible to enforce. Associate Planner Fox stated that there is really no way to regulate such a condition, as the purpose of the condition is simply to ensure that three garage spaces are provided. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff if they were satisfied that the renderings submitted by the architect accurately represent the footprint of the newly designed residence. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff was satisfied with the submitted renderings. Vice Chairman Gerstner explained that he has stated many times that he gives less weight to the numbers in terms of area and square footage than he gives to the appearance and feel of a project. He felt this design is much more in character of a ranch style home and is a modernization of structures found throughout the community, and that a significant amount of work has been done to address the aesthetics of the house. He continues to have some concern, however, about the fact that this particular property is somewhat raised and accentuates the structure on the property. He also noted this is one of the smaller properties in the neighborhood that will have one of the biggest homes placed on it. Commissioner Knight agreed that the architectural changes made to the proposal are favorable. He noted this is an extremely difficult lot to build on because of the slopes and the size of the lot. He could not, however, make finding No. 8 for the height variation or finding No. 5 for the grading permit. He felt the proposed residence is still too large with too much bulk and mass for this neighborhood. Chairman Lewis felt that the home at 22 Cayuse Lane skews the neighborhood compatibility analysis, and this is why the Planning Commissioners visit and get a feel for the neighborhoods in question. He didn't think the home at 22 Cayuse Lane would Planning Commission Minutes March 24,2009 Page 5 'be approved if it were before the Planning Commission today. He stated that he was not able to make the necessary findings in order to approve the project currently before the Commission. Commissioner Perestam also felt that that the design of the home has been greatly improved, however the bulk and mass are the same as the original project. He therefore did not think he could make the findings for neighborhood compatibility in order to recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Tetreault also liked the architectural style; however the house still displays too much bulk and mass. He noted that there are other two story homes in the community, however they are not as prominently positioned on their lots. He stated that this house is not compatible with the four closest homes and therefore it concentrates its effect onto the closest neighbors. He also acknowledged that a lot of work and a lot of progress have been made on the design of the house, and it is a challenge to build on this size of lot. He noted, however, that the challenge is mostly because of the size of home the owner wants built on the lot. He stated he was not able to make the neighborhood compatibility findings needed to approve the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated he is probably closer to approving this project than the other Commissioners, however he was still not completely comfortable with the project. He too felt that considerable progress was made on the redesign, and for a house this size he felt the architect has done as good a job as can be done. He also felt that the home at 22 Cayuse skews the neighborhood compatibility analysis in terms of size, and was reluctant to approve a home that is bigger than this one quite large house. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the comments made about the improvement in the architecture, but the concerns with the bulk and mass of the residence. He was also concerned that this is a six bedroom home with an attached two bedroom guest house, and only three parking spaces available in the garage. He understood that this meets code requirements, but it adds to his concerns regarding the mass of the home. He stated that he too cannot make the necessary findings to approve the project. Commissioner Knight moved to deny the proposed residence with prejudiced The motion died to a lack of a second® ,Chairman Lewis asked the applicant if they would prefer to have a continuance to try another redesign of the project, keeping in mind the comments and concerns expressed by the Commissioners. Mr. Patel stated that the owner as agreed to try to redesign the project. Associate Planner Fox noted that a 90 day extension will be needed per the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Patel agreed to the one time 90 day extension. Planning Commission Minutes March 24,2009 Page 6 Director Rojas noted that if the Commission were to continue this public hearing, April 28th is the first available meeting to hear the item. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of April 28, 2009 to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tetreault noted that it is not so much the actual square footage of the project that he will be looking at, but what is done with the square footage, how the building is articulated, its appearance from the street, and how it fits in with the other homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Perestam felt there is still an opportunity to push the residence farther back onto the lot. He also noted, however, that since this is an Equestrian District, there must still be 800 feet somewhere on the property for the possibility of horse keeping. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the 800 square feet is not a requirement, but an incentive to gain extra lot coverage. Commissioner Knight felt that there will have to be a substantial design change to address the bulk and mass of the home. He suggested scaling down the house or moving the garage to the front and creating a split-level affect. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that the current character and articulation were a plus, but felt that the size could be reduced. Chairman Lewis stated that he was going to vote against the motion, as he did not think it was a wise practice for the Planning Commission to allow an applicant so many opportunities for redesign. He felt this practice gives an incentive to architects and applicants to over-reach with a project. The motion to continue the public hearing to the meeting of April 28, 2009 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project was approved (5-2) with Commissioner Knight and Chairman Lewis dissenting. 2. Variance (Case No. ZON200 -00001)0 21 Crestwind Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Variance for the reduced front yard setback. She explained that staff was able to make the necessary findings, and was recommending approval of the Variance. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 24,2009 Page 7 Patrick Killen (applicant) noted that, while the house may be proposed at 3,685 square feet, the garage and storage space alone are proposed to be 1,142 square feet leaving the actual living area at 2,880 square feet. He briefly explained the proposed addition to the residence and showed several pictures to aid his discussion. Commissioner Knight asked staff if, once the addition is completed, will there still be enough room to park a car and not block the sidewalk. Assistant Planner Kim answered there will be enough room to park and not block the sidewalk. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-09 thereby approving the Variance application as conditioned and recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Knight stated that he agreed with the motion, noting that there are unusual and extraordinary circumstances because of the slope in the rear that warrant the Variance. The motion to approve the Variance was approved, (7-0). 3. Zone Change Request Case No. ZON2009-00053): E. Tract 16540 Portuguese Bend Club Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that staff is requesting additional time to prepare and circulate a Negative Declaration. Therefore, staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to the May 12, 2009 meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to the May 12, 2009 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of February 10, 2009 .Commissioner Knight noted a spelling error on page 11 of the minutes. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved as amended, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the regular meeting of March 31, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes March 24,2009 Page 8 'The pre-agenda was approved, with direction to staff to move any minutes to the April 14, 2009 meeting. 6. re-Agenda for the meeting of April 14, 2009 The agenda was approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 24,2009 Page 9