Loading...
PC MINS 20090428 Approved July 28, 2009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Perestarn 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 Associate Planner Fox and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to move item Nos. 5, 6, and 7 to be heard after item No. 1 and before item No. 2. COMMUNICATIONS Associate Planner Fox noted that the April 21, 2009 City Council meeting was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum. He also reported that the revision to the Conditional Use Permit for the Terranea project is on the May 4th City Council agenda and the appeal of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the Valero gas station site are on the May 5th City Council agenda. Associate Planner Fox distributed 8 items of correspondence for Agenda item No. 1 and one item of correspondence for Agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regard fl2D:A90M di da items): M91- None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Reconsideration of Height Variation, Gradigg_Eerrinit & Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2Oq7:22E23)® 5 Cayuse Lane Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and noting the plans before the Commission are the fourth iteration of the project. He stated that the property was re-silhouetted to reflect the current proposed project. He explained the new scope of the project, noting the revised home will now be the second largest home in the neighborhood and 1,126 square feet smaller than the project previously denied by the Commission. He showed several renderings prepared by the architect. He explained that the neighbors surrounding the project remain concerned that the project is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. He explained that if the Commission believes that this revised proposal achieves the compatibility with the character of the immediate neighborhood the Commission may elect to adopt the draft Resolution included in the staff report. However, if the Commission finds the project remains incompatible, there are several alternatives available as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that there has been quite a bit of correspondence received from the neighbors expressing their concerns related to moving the project back and privacy concerns. He asked staff if they had any comments regarding these concerns. Associate Planner Fox noted the house has been moved further back onto the property, and in doing so there are now windows proposed that will look directly onto the front portion of the Moulding property. He explained that these windows are bedroom windows and not located in the main living area of the residence, and therefore staff suggests the windows be redesigned in some way to limit the visibility downward into the Moulding yard area. Further, because these windows are not located in the main living area of the residence staff is not as concerned about the privacy impacts as it would be if these windows were located in the living room or dining room. Shakil Patel (applicant's architect) displayed a site plan of the property and explained the building has now been moved back into the hillside. He did not see any concerns with privacy as there are a minimal number of windows. He also noted that the original plan had proposed five bedrooms, while this plan proposes only four bedrooms. He stated there is a slight increase in the area of the guest house because of the staircase. He felt that all of the issues from the previous meeting have been addressed and asked the Planning Commission to approve the project. Riad Itani (applicant and engineer) felt that this new design is nestled into the hillside and the house really cannot be seen. He therefore he felt the issues of mass and bulk were no longer applicable. Further, the project exceeds the setback requirements and the lot coverage is much less than allowed by Code. He acknowledged the home is larger than the others in the neighborhood, but noted that these are much older houses Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2009 Page 2 and it would be very difficult and is not feasible to build a new home less than 2,500 square feet. He also noted that the actual house is 4,100 square feet and the second unit makes the total 5,300 square feet. Therefore, he felt the actual house is nothing more than an average sized house. David Moulding (7 Cayuse Lane) stated this fourth plan revision reduced the overall size of the residence by another 9 percent, which brings its size just below the largest house in the neighborhood. However, the project is still twice the size of the houses on the abutting lots, and it still does not conform to the styles in the neighborhood. From his perspective, this is the most intrusive design. Whereas before the project was hidden behind the end of his house, the guest house has now been moved forward towards his house. There will be a 20 foot high wall which stretches 40 or more feet that will be readily visible from his outside patio, dining room, and living room. He will also be overlooked by two full length windows in the guest bedroom and another room. He therefore felt that in addition to the compatibility issues, there is now a privacy issue from his property. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that Mr. Moulding had commented this is the worst design so far, and asked Mr. Moulding if he would prefer one of the previous designs. Mr. Moulding answered he would be very much happier with the guest house moved towards the middle of the lot. Craig Washington stated that all of the neighborhood houses are single-story ranch style, however this is a two-story proposal and much larger than the houses next to it. He questioned how anyone could call this compatible with the neighborhood. He didn't think this house design has changed significantly as it is still a two-story house that is much larger than the others in the neighborhood. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Washington if he had a preference between this design and the previous design, Mr. Washington answered that all of the proposed designs have been bad. Lavon Malin felt that comparing this house to the house at 22 Cayuse Lane was like comparing apples to oranges, as 22 Cayuse Lane is an elderly care facility. She stated the looming structure is intrusive to her back yard and back windows. She felt if the home were a single-story ranch style like all of the others in the neighborhood that it would conform beautifully. She felt the answer to the situation is conformity. Mr. Patel (in rebuttal) stated he has complied with all of the zoning requirements of the City. He stated there are subjective issues which he is not able to satisfy everyone. He felt that with the size of the lot, the geology, and the topography it is not economically feasible to build a smaller home on the lot. He stated he would be more than happy to reduce the size of the windows in question. Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2009 Page 3 Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the architect had pushed the residence back on to the property by sixteen feet, and in doing so the residence will have a greater impact to 7 Cayuse Lane. He questioned if moving the house back from the front property line some distance less than 16 feet would change the impact to 7 Cayuse Lane. Mr. Patel was open to the suggestion of sliding the house back a lesser distance from the front property line if it would mean less of an impact to the neighbor. Commissioner Perestarn stated he was one of the Commissioners who had suggested moving the residence back from the front property line. He thought that in doing so it would lessen the impact of the house to the community as a whole. He understands the concerns of the owners at 7 Cayuse Lane, however he felt the house is going to have an impact to 7 Cayuse wherever it is located on the property. He felt that the suggestion to lessen the windows would be helpful and was open to moving the house up on the property a small distance if it would help lessen the impact to 7 Cayuse Lane. Commissioner Tetreault noted that anyone in this neighborhood would be allowed to build a second unit on their property. Therefore, he felt that when comparing the size of this residence to others in the neighborhood, the Commission should consider subtracting out the 1,133 square feet of the second unit. In doing so, that would leave a 4,200 square foot home, which he felt was much closer to the size of the homes in the immediate neighborhood. He also noted that 35 percent of the 20 closest homes in the immediate neighborhood are two-story residences. He felt that bulk and mass issues could be resolved by moving the house back on the lot, however there are then privacy issues involved with 7 Cayuse Lane. He felt that this project is getting closer to something he could support. Commissioner Knight asked staff their view on separating out the square footage of the guest house from the main residence, in terms of accessing the bulk and mass of the project. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff feels the square footage of the guest house needs to be included in the overall square footage. He explained that even if this were a detached second unit, staff would be assessing the overall total structure size on the property. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if other homes in the neighborhood would be allowed to build second units on their property. Associate Planner Fox answered that the Development Code has provisions that allow any lot with a developed residence to apply for a second unit on the property. He explained that if certain criteria is met, it becomes an over-the-counter staff approval. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the design of this house has changed significantly both in size and character since it was first brought before the Planning Commission. He recognized that this is an extremely difficult lot, and while he was compassionate to Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2009 Page 4 the owner regarding the ability of building a smaller house, he felt that was a financial consideration and not one that carries weight with what the Planning Commission must consider. However, he felt enough has changed with this home that he can now find it is compatible with the neighborhood. He added that if sliding the house some feet to make it less impactful to 7 Cayuse is both acceptable to the applicant and Mr. Moulding, he would be in favor of doing so. Commissioner Tomblin felt the applicant has gone a good distance to try to meet the concerns of the Commission. He appreciated the reduction of size and moving the house on the lot, and was much closer to supporting this project than he was in the past. He agreed with Vice Chairman Gerstner in that the applicant can work with staff and the Mouldings to move the house to create less of an impact to the Moulding property. Chairman Lewis stated he does not support the project. He felt that a 20 percent reduction in the square footage demonstrates more about the over-reaching of this project in the first place than the reasonableness of the current project. He praised the design and felt the architect did the best job he could given the instructions he received from his client. He felt the owner of the property has unrealistic expectations as to what should be done with this property. Commissioner Knight agreed with the Chairman's comments. He felt the second unit is part of the neighborhood compatibility bulk and mass as it is part of the entire building. The fact that second units are part of the Code does not affect how the rules work in terms of assessment of neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Knight acknowledged the work done by the architect, however he did not think the overall design of the residence has changed enough for him to be able to support the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested taking a straw vote as to whether or not the Commissioners were in favor of the current design, without committing to where on the lot the residence would be placed. If the Commission agreed on the design he would then suggest the public hearing be continued to allow the applicant to work with the residents at 1 and 7 Cayuse Lane as to the best location for the residence on the lot. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt this design is now compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault explained that because of the location of this lot, the proposed residence does appear to stand out. However, given that the Commission is to compare this design with the 20 closest homes, which tend to be around the corner and not as visible, he felt that the current design does fit in with those homes. He noted that he was still a bit uncomfortable with the design and his approval will depend on the location of the house on the lot. Commissioners Ruttenberg, Tomblin, and Perestarn stated they were supportive of the new design. Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2009 Page 5 Commissioner Knight stated he is not in support of the new design. Commissioner Ruttenberg movedto continue the public hearing to June 23, 2009 to allow the applicant the opportunity redesign the project in regards to where on the lot the house will be located to further address privacy and bulk and mass issues as well as to address the windows in terms of privacy, seconded y Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, ( d2)with Commissioner Knight and Chairman Lewis dissenting. APPROVAL F MINUTES 5. Minutes of Fe ruary 24, 2009 Commissioner Perestam noted a typo on page 1 of the minutes. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as amended, s conded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, ) with Commissioner Tomblin and Vice Chairman Gerstner abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. 6e Minutes of March 10, 2009 Commissioner Perestam noted a typo on page 1 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconds by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7® )with Commissioners Peresta , Ruttenberg and Tetreault recused from the vote on item No. 4. 7. Minutes of March 24,2009 Commissioner Perestam noted a typo on page 1 of the minutes. Chairman Lewis noted a modification on page 7 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tetreaulte Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation rading Permit & Site Plan Revi - Case No. 2 22 Oceanalre Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, briefly explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2009 Page 6 Commissioner Knight noted staff addressed view impacts from 31 Oceanalre, but asked if there were any privacy impacts to that address. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff determined there would be no privacy impacts to 31 Oceanaire Drive, as the applicant has not proposed any windows on the area closest to that property. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the applicant worked very closely with the neighbors in the design of this addition and that when the latest public notice was circulated staff received no comments from the neighbors. Associate Planner Fox noted that there were no requests from the public to speak on the item. Commissioner Perestarn moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-10 thereby approving the project as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). 3. Helaht Variation Case o® ZON200g:291861- 26325 Birchfield Avenue Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report explaining the scope of the proposed project and the need for the height variation. He stated that staff believes most of the required findings for the height variation can be made; however, staff does not feel the proposed project is compatible with the character of the immediate neighbor and results in privacy infringement to the abutting residences. He noted that two letters in opposition to the project have been received and distributed to the Planning Commission. He explained that staff disagreed with Dr. Cho's concern of view impairment, and explained that staff felt any view impairment would be of sky which is not a protected view. He also noted Dr. Cho's privacy concerns, however pointed out that his is not an abutting residence and therefore the consideration of privacy is not within the scope of the findings before the Commission. He stated that staff is recommending denial without prejudice; however, he noted that the project could be modified to address the issues of neighborhood compatibility and privacy impacts so that staff could make a favorable recommendations. He stated that in a recent conversation with the applicant he expressed great interest and willingness in exploring alternatives that would allow the project to get a favorable recommendation by staff. Commissioner Perestarn asked if the existing wall in the front of the property is a code violation or if it is considered a legal non-conforming wall. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff considers the wall legal non-conforming. Commissioner Perestarn asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to weigh in on this wall in considering the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2009 Page 7 Associate Planner Fox explained that the applicant is not proposing any modification to the wall, and typically in such a situation the City does not require the owner to bring the non-conformity into conformance. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. James Jue (applicant) stated he would like to request an extension for this project so that he can work with the architect to find a design that may be more suitable for the neighborhood. Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Jue if he was willing to grant a 90-day time extension under the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Jue agreed to the extension. Man Cho stated he was concerned with his privacy in regards to the proposed two-story addition. He explained that with the proposed second story his home will be very exposed, especially his master bedroom and garden area. Chairman Lewis explained to Dr. Cho that most likely the Planning Commission will give the applicant more time to redesign his project, and that will give him time to work with the owner and architect to address his privacy concerns. Rollin Sturgeon did not think the proposed two-story house among 19 one-story houses qualifies as compatible. He also noted that the surrounding homes are predominately ranch style homes. He also did not feel the design of the house was compatible with those in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to June 23, 2009 to allow the applicant an opportunity to re-design the project to address the issues of bulk, mass, and privacy, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7- 0). 4. Heiqht VariationaGrading Permit, Site Plan Review & Environmental Assessmenj(gase No. ZON2007-00486): 3450 Via Campesina Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that his residence is within 500 feet of the property and therefore will recuse himself from this application. He left the dais. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that in 2004 the Commission approved a Height Variation and Grading Permit for a new residence, cabana, and associated grading on this vacant lot. However, the Commission's approval expired in 2005 and the property was subsequently sold to the current applicant. He explained the scope of this new proposal, explaining that the building envelope of the current proposal is generally the same as that of the 2004 project, with Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2009 Page 8 the main differences being that there is approximately 1,200 square feet of additional living area on the lower level next to the garage which results in an additional 177 cubic yards of grading. He stated that staff feels all of the required findings can be made to approve the proposed project. He added that normally the review of a single family residence on an established lot would typically be exempt from review under CEQA, however staff identified the abutting Lloyd Wright designed residence as a local historical resource® However the construction of this new home will have no direct impact to the existing home. As such, staff believes the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and for this reason a draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. In conclusion, he stated that staff was recommending certification of the Negative Declaration and conditional approval of the requested Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review. Commissioner Knight noted this property is in an Equestrian District and asked if there was any area available for horse keeping. Associate Planner Fox noted a small area that could possibly be used for horse keeping, but it was not likely. Commissioner Tomblin moved to adopt PC Resolution 2009-11 thereby certifying the Negative Declaration and adopting PC Resolution 2009-12 thereby conditionally approving the requested Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0)with Vice Chairman Gerstner recused. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of May 12 209 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2009 Page 9