Loading...
PC MINS 20100511 Approved June 22, 2010 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE$ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 11, 2010 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 Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Leon, Lewis, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioner Emenhiser was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Trester, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their May 4th meeting the City Council clarified the intent of a condition imposed on the Nantasket subdivision project and made a final decision on the athletic field location issue related to the Marymount College project. He also noted that at the upcoming May 18th meeting, the City Council will hear an appeal of the proposed new residence on San Ramon Drive, which was approved by the Planning Commission. Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 5, three items of correspondence for agenda item No. 6, and four items of correspondence for agenda item No. 8. Commissioner Leon reported that he had spoken to Mr. O'Sullivan regarding agenda item No. 6. Commissioners Leon and Knight reported that they had met with a resident in regards to agenda item No. 8. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved as presented. 1. Appeal of City Tree Review Permit (Case No. VRP2008-00031): Via Cambron, Via Collado & Berry Hill Drive With the approval of the Consent Calendar, the status report on this item was received and filed. 2. Time extension for Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2007-00486): 3450 Via Campesina Chairman Gerstner recused himself from this item, and therefore abstained from the vote, as it is within 500 feet of his residence. With the approval of the Consent Calendar a one year extension was granted. 3. Five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) annual review & General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2010-00150): With the approval of the Consent Calendar PC Resolution 2010-13 was adopted approved adopting the five-year capital improvement plan and finding it consistent with the General Plan. 4. Requested change to the approved Planning Commission minutes for February 23, 2010 With the approval of the Consent Calendar the minutes were revised as requested, with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining on this item since he was not present at the meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 5. Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00497): 30939 Rue Valois Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 2 Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and noting the Commission's concerns with privacy impacts to the neighbor to the south as well as a mitigation measure proposed by staff to plant foliage along the south property line. She gave an overview of the project, noting the proposed changes to the design. She showed several photographs taken from the neighbor's yard to demonstrate how the proposed hedge would mitigate view impacts from the proposed project to a less than significant level. She stated that staff was asking the Planning Commission to consider the applicant's proposal that is before the Commission and if it meets the Commission's concerns, direct staff to return with the appropriate resolution. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they determined if the sitting room at the applicant's residence was permitted. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff researched the file for the residence and found there were no records of square footages for the house and therefore staff could not confirm whether or not certain portions of the residence were constructed after the original house was built. However, she noted that if the applicant were to come to the city to permit this area, it would be a fairly simple over the counter approval, as the area meets all of the code requirements. She also noted that since the existing home is being demolished and a new one built, staff did not feel this was an issue. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. George Shaw (architect) felt that there are a lot of solutions being discussed, but questioned if anyone really knows what the problem is. Therefore, to solve the problem he had to do a detailed analysis of what the view situation is. He stated that the idea of putting vegetation down below on the neighboring property was one of the first suggestions he put to Mr. Ahmady, however the idea was rejected. He noted that in the study he has determined a way to get privacy for the area off of the house without added vegetation. He noted that to give the other neighbor the protected view he requested, he moved the house back 7 'h feet. Commissioner Leon stated that at the previous meeting there was discussion about making the balcony railing on the ocean facing facade either opaque or solid. He asked Mr. Shaw why he did not make that change. Mr. Shaw answered that when he found the balcony was blocked by the wall he did not think it was an issue. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify where the protected view was from the neighbor's property to the west. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that there are no protected views in regards to foliage and the neighbor's property to the west. Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 3 Ranua Haddad (applicant) stated that in his letter protesting the proposed residence, Mr. Ahmady does not provide any information that meets his obligation of proving any unreasonable infringement of indoor and/or outdoor privacy as required by the Code. Instead, she felt the letter questions her integrity, the integrity of the house design, and the process followed to try to resolve the issue. She noted that she has provided the Commission with information to allow the Commission how best to mitigate Mr. Ahmady's privacy concerns. She noted that Mr. Ahmady has already rejected the suggestions of putting a solid balustrade on the balcony and an offer to plant a hedge on his side of the property. She stated that the proposed balcony is absolutely an appropriate architectural element of the proposal and a very important design element for her personally. Ed Griffin (applicant) stated that he had provided a very detailed privacy analysis to staff and all parties concerned which included a section showing a proposed hedge on Mr. Ahmady's property that would effectively provide the privacy to Mr. Ahmady. Mr. Griffin gave a brief timeline of this project including his meetings with the neighbors and his many attempts to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He asked that the Commission make a determination on what reasonable privacy is so that they can move forward with this project. Matt Fredricks stated that at the previous meeting the neighbors and property owner were tasked to meet and try to work out a solution to the privacy issues. He stated that a meeting was held, however design changes were not sufficient enough to reach any agreements. He explained that the proposed foliage barrier along the wall will be detrimental to his ocean view. He hoped that the Commission could find some alternative to this foliage barrier. He showed several photographs of his current view and demonstrated how this view will be blocked with the planting of foliage. Ali Ahmady noted statements made by the applicant regarding the privacy in his yard. He felt that his privacy has worsened despite the location of the flags and lowering of the balcony, and questioned if staff and the applicant are measuring and evaluating the same thing all of the time or if these measurements and evaluations change. He did not think the applicants really acknowledged privacy as an issue, and therefore they are using a different definition and criteria. He also felt it was reasonable for him to question the credibility of documents as well as the applicant's interpretation of these documents. He felt that for solving a problem one should utilize all resources for a proper solution and if you are not prepared to explore all the avenues then the easiest solution would be to eliminate the problem. His solution was to redesign the room attached to the garage to move it three feet towards the garage, reduce the size of the balcony to 4 feet, and reduce the length of the balcony by half. He also suggested elimination of the east portion of the balcony that has more impact on his privacy. Commissioner Leon noted that it has been stated several times that Mr. Ahmady is unwilling to have trees planted on his property to control his own privacy, and asked Mr. Ahmady to comment. Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 4 Mr. Ahmady stated that any tree planted will have to be at least 15 feet in height in order to give him privacy, and he felt that it would be difficult to plant and maintain a 15 foot high tree. George Shaw (in rebuttal) stated that his analysis shows that he can get privacy without the use of vegetation for the covered porch off of the house. He cannot get privacy for the table and four chairs out at the point. He also said that it is up to the Commission as to how they interpret unreasonable impacts and what does and does not deserve privacy. Commissioner Leon asked staff, in terms of privacy from two-story houses to adjacent yards, is it typical in applications before the City to have zero view of other yards or a portion of a view of adjacent yards. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that, given the way the two lots are configured, the privacy analysis is atypical. She explained that in most situations there is not a rear facade looking down onto an entire backyard, noting that the view into the backyard is usually at an angle. Commissioner Lewis stated that he cannot make the findings, as he continues to have concerns about the privacy issues. He explained that he supported a continuance at the last meeting to give the parties a chance to talk and work to find a compromise. He also did not think it was a function of the Planning Commission to redesign the project so that the Commission could then make the necessary findings. Commissioner Leon stated that he would be able to make the finding that there is reasonable privacy if the applicant was willing to fund trees or foliage on the downslope side of the adjacent property. He noted that he did not feel there was an increase in the height of the wall needed, based on Mr. Shaw's calculations. He felt that the foliage, combined with a solid balustrade, would satisfy his concerns. Chairman Gerstner'felt that without foliage on the wall adequate privacy would be maintained, and he could therefore make the findings. He added that additional foliage lower down the slope on Mr. Ahmady's property could provide even greater privacy. He also felt that, although Mr. Fredrick's view is not a protected view, it would take quite a threshold for him to vote to block someone's view. He did not want to block his view just to make it easy to find a solution for the other parties involved. Vice Chairman Tomblin supported the Chairman's comments, adding that he also felt that privacy is obtained without the addition of the proposed hedge. Commissioner Knight agreed that he would like to help save Mr. Fredrick's view. He agreed with the Chairman that planting vegetation on the lower slope would increase privacy, however he did not know how to make that a mitigation measure since it is on a neighboring property. Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 5 Chairman Gerstner stated he was not suggesting adding the vegetation as a mitigation measure. He explained that he felt the privacy was adequate as proposed and that if the property owner wanted further privacy he could consider planting vegetation on his slope. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that there are view concerns and also felt that there are things that the neighbor who has privacy concerns can do to help himself with these concerns. Chairman Gerstner suggested the applicant provide some financial support for the vegetation to be planted on the neighbor's lower slope. Commissioner Leon moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the project as conditioned with the added conditions that: 1) the wall be maintained at the recommended height but without the recommended vegetation; 2) that the balustrade be solid; and 3) there be some compensation to Mr. Ahmady for the installation of privacy vegetation on their side of the wall, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Director Rojas noted that while the Commission has the ability to impose the condition regarding compensation to the neighbor for the planting of trees with the applicant's consent, a specific monetary amount should be determined. He also noted that while the Commission can require the applicant to pay the neighbor this money, the Commission cannot require the downslope neighbor to plant anything. He suggested the condition be that if the lower property owner plants vegetation on his property for privacy screening within the next year, the applicant will reimburse the Ahmadys a certain set amount. After some discussion on the number of trees needed and the cost of a 24-inch box tree the Commission felt that $2,000 would be a sufficient amount to cover the cost of planting trees in the Ahmady's yard that could provide additional privacy. Commissioner Leon moved to amend his motion to reflect that the applicant will reimburse the downslope neighbor an amount not to exceed $2,000 to be paid after the vegetation for privacy purposes has been planted. This planting must take place within one year after the building permit has been finaled, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Director Rojas noted that staff would require the money be put in a trust deposit with the City and the property owner would be reimbursed once receipts for the trees have been presented to the City. He stated that this condition could require the money be deposited at the time of permit issuance. Commissioner Lewis suggested that, since the City is acting as an escrow and is incurring risk and liability, that language be added to the motion that the applicant, as a Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 6 condition of approval, indemnifies the City with respect to any claims or actions that are made with respect to the City's role as escrow. Commissioner Leon accepted the suggested language regarding escrow, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Tetreault felt that through this process the Commission was now putting upon this neighbor the burden of trying to protect his privacy by planting trees that most likely will grow into another neighbor's view and will then be subject to view restoration. Chairman Gerstner disagreed, explaining that he believed the neighbor's privacy is adequately protected by the fact that the wall is there and by the requirement of the solid balustrade and that the use of the balcony will be limited as it is not off of a living room or main gathering area. He clarified that he was saying is that he would not object to providing the neighbor some restitution to further enhance his privacy if he so chooses. He felt causing the applicant to build something that doesn't allow any view onto a neighboring is beyond reasonable privacy. Commissioner Lewis felt that the $2,000 trust deposit was gratuitous and destroys any nexus between what the applicant is trying to do and the problem. He felt that the person who created this problem is the person who wants this balcony and noted that he would approve this project if the balcony were not included. Director Rojas stated that if the Planning Commission feels there is no privacy impact then they cannot impose this condition on the applicant. Vice Chairman Tomblin equated this proposed condition to a similar condition that the Planning Commission often uses that windows must be opaque for added privacy to the neighbors. Commissioner Lewis felt that the Commission, in attempting to do justice and have all of the neighbors feel good about the decision, may create a lot of unintended consequences. The motion to approve staffs recommendations as amended to add the conditions that the wall be maintained at the recommended height but without the recommended vegetation; the balustrade on the second story deck be solid; and that the applicant establish a $2,000 trust deposit with the city to reimburse the neighbor for any planting down to enhance the privacy, which must be done within one year of the building permit final was approved (4-2) with Commissioners Tetreault and Lewis dissenting. Director Rojas stated that a Resolution will be on the Consent Calendar for approval at the next meeting. 6. Proposed revisions to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 7 Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, noting that at the previous meeting the Commission agreed to accept Staffs proposed amendments clarifying foliage height test for View Preservation requests and the introduction of language to protect bird nests per Federal and State Law, reviewed Mr. O'Sullivan's suggested changes, requested specific amendments, and directed staff to draft amended language. Commissioner Tetreault questioned what happens in situations where a view applicant had a viewing area established however they remodel their home and have a new viewing area in a different location, but do not submit a new view restoration application. Director Rojas explained that the City Attorney reviewed this scenario and determined the old decision on a view application would still be binding and the foliage owner would still be bound to maintain their foliage. He also noted that there are situations where the decision on an application benefits surrounding property owners. He also noted that rescinding a previous permit could only occur if the applicant applies for a new view permit application. Commissioner Tetreault felt there should be some mechanism in place for a foliage owner to remove their foliage maintenance requirements if a view is eliminated by a remodel of the applicant's residence. He felt that the remodel or elimination of a viewing area could trigger a process to allow a foliage owner to seek possible relief from his trimming obligations. Commissioner Knight suggested that when an application is submitted to the City for a remodel, staff checks to see if there is a view restoration permit for the property, and if so, whether there will be a reanalysis of viewing area done at that time. Director Rojas noted that any change in the city approved view restoration permit would have to come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. He stated that these types of scenarios have not yet happened and felt that there was very little chance that they would happen. Before opening the public hearing, Senior Planner Alvarez noted that Mr. O'Sullivan had submitted late correspondence for this item to staff and the Planning Commission. He noted that staff agrees with Mr. O'Sullivan's comments regarding the determination of viewing area and the ability of an applicant, foliage owner, or any interested party to appeal the determination of the viewing area. Therefore staff has modified Section Ill-B of the Guidelines to make this clarification, however it was not reflected in the draft Resolution included in the staff report. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Michael O'Sullivan began with his suggestion No. 6 that whenever a tree is removed that it be replaced with a tree that is reasonably comparable in function and/or aesthetics. He did not think the City should dictate what functions a tree provides in Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 8 justifying the replacement tree. He felt that the entire section listing the conditions under which a replacement tree is available should be eliminated. He also agreed that not every tree should be replaced on a one-to-one basis in all cases. In regards to determining a viewing area, he felt that the foliage owner should also have early input. He felt that the wording in the Guidelines regarding protected view and 16 feet or the ridgeline, whichever is lower, would suggest the City is trying to protect a view of the applicant's upper structure and roof. He felt that the wording should be revised. He felt that the issue of going back to when the lot was originally created was severe for the foliage owner. He questioned what can be changed in the Ordinance and Guidelines by the Commission and what requires voter approval to Proposition M. Barbara O'Sullivan addressed the balance between the foliage owner and the view applicants, specifically in addressing the replacement of trees with shrubs. She would like to see a little more discretion given to the Commission in terms of what they can do to reestablish the foliage owners landscaping when a mature tree is removed. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight referred to page 2 section 4, and clarified that the revision should read "The selection of the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner." Commissioner Knight also asked staff to clarify what changes can be made to the Ordinance and Guidelines by the Commission and what type of changes need voter approval. Director Rojas explained the City cannot make language changes that are contrary to the intent of the Ordinance. Through the years when changes are suggested the City Attorney must make a determination if that proposed revision is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance. Commissioner Lewis felt that some of the revisions the O'Sullivans have suggested are close to or possibly cross the line in regards to changing the intent of or altering how the Ordinance operates. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the draft Guidelines as amended to add the language that the selection of the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner, to incorporate the language added by staff to clarify the language of the appeal rights to the viewing area, to change the Director's title to Community Development Director throughout the document, and that the O'Sullivans comments be included in the City Council staff report, and to forward the document to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 9 7. Revision to Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2009- 00495): 5501 Shoreview Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, briefly explaining the previously approved project and the proposed revision. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed revision as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Lewis stated, that though he is statutorily eligible to hear this item, he would recuse himself since the residence is only a few blocks from his home. He left the dais. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Russ Barto (architect) stated he was available to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted that quite a bit of detail shown on the original plan that has been left off of the revised plan. This raised a question in his mind as to how he views this project in terms of bulk and mass. Mr. Barto explained that the revised plans show only the mass and volume of the home and he did not apply details. Gregg Ferguson (applicant) explained that as a result of the home lending crisis, he and his wife decided to downsize the project, noting the project has been reduced in size by more than 1,000 square feet; the basement, and therefore the grading, has been eliminated; the overall height has been reduced by almost two feet over the main portion of the house and almost four feet over the portion closest to the public right-of- way; the appearance has changed from a two-story house to a design with a one-story appearance with limited second story space. He noted that the Planning Department had expressed concern with the steep roof pitch, however he explained that this pitch was needed for the south facing solar panels to be installed at a sufficient angle, allows for a small amount of second story space, and allows for a small shoreline view from the second story. He felt that the one-story appearance of this design is in keeping with the existing neighborhood, which is predominately one story. Chairman Gerstner understood that the proposed roof slope was needed to have any kind of space on the second floor given this type of design. However, he noted that putting solar panels on this roof slope will make them much less efficient than a flatter roof. Mr. Ferguson acknowledged that was correct. He explained their intent with this roof pitch was to maintain close to the existing house with consideration given to the plate heights. He stated that the 12:12 pitch is a bit high and they have recently looked at that pitch again, noting that if the main portion is lowered to match the garage portion, Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 10 that reduces the height approximately two feet and reduces the slope to 9:12. This would not reduce the height of the interior on the second floor. He explained that since the current plans had already been submitted to the City he did not want to submit yet another revision. His thought was that if the Commission approves this current plan there should be no objection to lowering the house two more feet. Commissioner Gordon asked staff if they have received any correspondence from the neighbors regarding this design. Assistant Planner Kim answered that there has been no correspondence from the neighbors. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the proposed revision as presented, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2010-15, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that he supports what the applicant is doing, however he was uncomfortable that there are too many details that have been excluded from the plans in order for him to evaluate the bulk and mass of the house. Chairman Gerstner stated he was comfortable with this revision, noting that if the applicant decides to reduce the pitch of the roof and overall height even further he would hope that it would not have to come back before the Planning Commission. Director Rojas noted that the conditions of approval allow for the Director to approve minor modifications to the project. If the plans were to be revised as discussed, he felt that would constitute a minor modification. PC Resolution 2010-15 approving the proposed revision was adopted (4-1) with Vice Chairman Tomblin dissenting and Commissioner Lewis recused. 8. Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2009-00303)• 2822 Colt Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Grading Permit. She showed several plan views of the proposed structure while explaining the scope of the project. Commissioner Knight noted this project is in the Equestrian Overlay District and asked if staff required an area be set aside for horse keeping. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there is no requirement, explaining that there are voluntary incentives in the Development Code that would allow property owners to incorporate a dedicated area for equestrian uses, and in doing so they would be allowed additional lot coverage for the property. She noted that the applicant has not voluntarily set aside an area for equestrian use. Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 11 Commissioner Knight noted a condition of approval that all of the existing trees be removed, and asked if that should be clarified to say all of the existing trees on the pad should be removed. Associate Planner Mikhail noted the change. Commissioner Tetreault asked, as presently configured, if there is an area suitable for horse keeping on the property. Associate Planner Mikhail displayed a site plan with elevation contours and noted that the slopes on the property are extreme slopes, and there could be no horse keeping on extreme slopes. She was not sure if there was an area of 800 square feet on the property that would be available for horse keeping. Vice Chairman Tomblin referred to the proposed two bedroom guest house and asked if there was a limitation in the Code as to the number of bedrooms. Associate Planner Mikhail answered there is not a limitation on the number of bedrooms in a guest house, as opposed to a second dwelling on a property that would have a separate address. She explained that there will be a condition that a covenant be filed that the guest house will not be used as a second dwelling unit on the property. Commissioner Leon discussed the view impairment and felt that the way the proposed structure is located on the property maximizes the view impairment just above it. He felt that the blockage of the entire harbor area is much more significant than view impairment from the Rumsey residence. He asked staff if they had pictures of this view impairment. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that she did not conduct a view analysis from that property, noting that this project is not subject to a view analysis. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they discussed with the applicant the fact that this property is in the Q District. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff did discuss this with the applicant quite some time ago when they first submitted their application. Commissioner Leon stated that in the future, if a property is in the Q District, he would like the staff report to note that the applicant has been informed that their property is in the Q District and the applicant had been informed of the horse keeping options available to the property. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if building heights are looked at the same way for different types of buildings or if there is different criteria in evaluating maximum heights from different types of uses. Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 12 Associate Planner Mikhail explained that in evaluating building heights for this property there are two separate sections of the Code that had to be used. There is a section that discusses the main, primary structure on the property and a separate section for accessory structures on the property. She noted that the code states that accessory structures shall not exceed twelve feet in height as measured from pre-construction grade. She noted that view issues do not come into play for any structures proposed. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. James Meyer (architect) stated that he and the homeowners have given considerable thought as to the layout of the project and has met his client's objectives as well as minimizing any impacts to the neighbors. He explained that the project was designed to be as low as possible, to allow for the maximum amount of landscaping, and noted that it will be a green project. He stated that he has photographs taken from the property above, owned by Ms. Aroba, and that there are no view impacts, as the roof line of the proposed project sits at approximately the floor level of the living room of Aroba residence. He also noted that Ms. Aroba has written a second letter stating her support of the proposed project and that the only view impacted was that of the oil field. Her view of the ocean and coastline is intact. Commissioner Knight noted that this residence is on septic, and asked where the water from the swimming pool will go when the pool is drained. Mr. Meyer answered that there is an on sight dispersion system for all drainage on the property. Commissioner Knight asked if there was a plan to line the pool with a leak detector. Mr. Meyer answered that he will be incorporating all of the most current building means and methods in the pool construction. Vice Chairman Tomblin referred to the proposed pool room and studio, and asked what the studio would specifically be used for. Mr. Meyer stated that the proposed studio was intended to be a maid's quarters for the housekeeper. He noted that the studio and the pool house are not connected and are separated. Amy Rumsey stated that she disagrees with the following staff findings: 1) That the applicant has minimized the appearance, bulk, and mass as seen from neighboring properties. She stated this is certainly not true as seen from her property; and, 2) Staffs comparison of similar modern homes in the area that only compares the structures to one-story homes that were built in the 1960s. She stated that the flat roof and straight line style is similar but she felt that is where the neighborhood compatibility ends. She showed a picture taken from her property explaining that it shows the actual impact the proposed structure has on her view. She stated that the area blocking her Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 13 view is the office located over the garage. She felt that if the office were moved to another location, the owner would still enjoy the view and there would not be such an impact on her view. Chairman Gerstner asked Ms. Rumsey if it is the bulk and mass of the area over the garage that is of concern or if it is that the structure is impeding a view. Ms. Rumsey answered that it is both bulk and mass and view impairment caused by this one room. Ziv Bender (homeowner) was disappointed that Mrs. Rumsey had not contacted him or his architect at some earlier point in the process to discuss her concerns with the office above the garage. He stated that he will not have horses on the property and that the pool house and guest house absolutely will not be used as living areas. James Meyer (in rebuttal) stated that he has met with the Rumseys in regards to the roadway easement and as a result of their meeting he substantially changed his initial design to accommodate their concerns regarding the roadway easements. He stated that, not at that time or at any time since, has anyone come forth with concerns regarding the nature of the architectural style or with concerns of a view being obstructed. In regards to Mrs. Rumsey's concerns, he explained that he designed this building to be a narrow, horizontal, low-lying building. He noted that the little corner referenced by Mrs. Rumsey is the only place where any of the surrounding neighbors can see the home. He also noted that he has addressed privacy concerns by not including an open balcony on this portion of the home. Chairman Gerstner asked if any study was done to determine what it would take to not have the office above the garage or to make adjustments to the office to help address the Rumsey's concerns. Mr. Meyer answered that he did not feel he could change the location of the office without substantially impacting the way the circulation works on the property. He also noted that he could not move the office to the area above the studio, as it would put the structure in the middle of the living room view of another neighbor. He pointed out that it has only been in the last few days that he has been made aware of the neighbor's concern and has not had the opportunity to do any study. Chairman Gerstner stated that he would like to see what could be done with this area once the architect has had an opportunity to study the issue. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to May 25, 2010 to allow the architect and applicant the opportunity to consider the concerns expressed by the neighbor and the Planning Commission, second by Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 14 Commissioner Knight stated that he was concerned with the pool drainage and where the water would go and with the amount of water in this location that is close to a steep slope. He wanted to ensure that there is protection built into the pool, such as a double lining or leak detection. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that this project has been extensively reviewed by the City's geotechnical staff and was also required to be reviewed for NPDES for drainage. She also explained that drainage will again be reviewed during the plan check process. Director Rojas noted that as part of the plan check process the geologist may require it if geologic issues are identified on the property. Commissioner Leon stated that he was somewhat concerned with the bulk and mass of the proposed project as seen from the Rumsey property. Commissioner Tomblin expressed his concerns with the bulk and mass as well as the location of the studio and why it should be a separate unit. He was concerned with the guest house showing two bedrooms and a kitchenette and did not want to see that becoming a bed and breakfast type structure. The motion to continue the public hearing to the May 25, 2010 meeting was unanimously approved. 9. General Plan update (Case No. ZON2008-00160) — "Draft Safety Element Assistant Planner Kim presented a brief staff report, briefly explaining what the safety element consists of, the organization of the draft safety element, how staff prepared the draft safety elements and what agencies staff worked with to prepare the element. Commissioner Lewis suggested that, since this item will be gone over in detail after the sub-committee has reviewed it, that at this time the Commission summarize any issues or questions at this time. Deputy Director Pfost stated that he and staff will begin working with the subcommittee and this draft element will be back before the Planning Commission at a future hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10. Minutes of April 13, 2010 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 15 11. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 25, 2010 The pre-agenda was unanimously approved. Commissioner Tetreault noted that he will be absent from the May 25th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2010 Page 16