Loading...
PC MINS 20101123 Approved January 11, 2011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES I#R PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Tomblin at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Chairman Gerstner was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their November 16th meeting the City Council took up a procedural issue related to the proposed Annenberg project. He noted a motion in support of staffs recommendation to proceed with the City's entitlement process before pursuing a formal program of utilization consistency application, and that a General Plan amendment was not necessary was not supported by the City Council. Director Rojas distributed four items of correspondence for agenda item No. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Coastal Permit, Variance, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review(Case No. ZON2009-00403): 83 Yacht Harbor Drive Commissioner Lewis announced that he is recused from this item and left the dais. Commissioner Tetreault stated he was absent from the meeting when this item was first presented, however he has read the staff report and the minutes and felt he was able to participate in this public hearing. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report. She gave a brief overview of the project, noting the original project and the revised project that is before the Commission. She showed several pictures showing the differences between the original project and the currently proposed project, noting that staff was not able to make the findings to support the Variance for the height of the residence or the findings for the Variance for construction over an extreme slope. Commissioner Tetreault could not recall having this type of Variance application where the proposed structure height is beyond the Commission's ability to grant a Variance. He asked staff their view as to what level of discretion, if any, the Planning Commission has in terms of granting this application in regards to the Variance for the structure height. Director Rojas explained that approval of a Height Variation application is required to allow an applicant to build over 16 feet in height, up to a limit of 26 feet. Anything proposed over 26 feet in height requires a Variance application, and there is no upper limit on the height. However, he noted that a Variance has the more difficult findings to make and it is rare for staff to be able to make the findings to support a Variance for a structure over the maximum height limit of 26 feet. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff the same question in regards to a Variance for construction over an extreme slope. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that it is at the discretion of the Planning Commission as to whether or not they can make the Variance findings to allow construction over an extreme slope. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff what issues they had with construction over an extreme slope. Director Rojas answered that the Code prohibits structures on an extreme slope and strictly regulates grading on extreme slopes, noting that the General Plan contains policies to protect slopes over 35 percent with the idea to maintain terrain versus structures. He stated that staff tends to only support Variances for construction on extreme slopes when there are clearly no alternatives available or obvious hardships. Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 2 Commissioner Tetreault understood that staff rarely recommends approval of such a Variance, but asked if there are many developments within the City that are built over extreme slopes. Director Rojas noted that Variances for building over an extreme slope are usually for additions to existing homes. He did not know how many Variances for building over an extreme slope have come before the Planning Commission and how many have been approved, but he estimated that staff most likely recommends approval on less than 10 percent of those applications. Ed Beall (architect) showed a side elevation of the proposed home and explained that he cut back the front of the house to allow for a porch going across the kitchen. He noted that the house sits over a 35 percent slope, and explained that when he moved the bedroom back, as requested by the Planning Commission, it resulted in sixteen additional square feet placed over the extreme slope. He stated that most of the extreme slope is now occupied by the house and porch over it. He briefly described the current proposal and how it differs from the proposal that was originally before the Commission. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Beall if he had any issues with lowering the pitch of the roof from the current 3:12 pitch to the staff recommended 2:12 pitch. Commissioner Leon asked staff if, by virtue of doing what the Planning Commission requested by moving the addition back to the house so that it no longer impedes the privacy and view of the neighbor, it exceeded the overall height rule as well as the building over an extreme slope rule. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that was correct. Mr. Beall stated that architecturally he does have a problem, as he would like to put a tile roof on the house. He stated that if needs to, he will lower the pitch of the roof. Michael Gonzales (architect) explained he has once again redesigned the project, and feels this current proposal is responsive to the Commission's requests from the September hearing. He felt the proposal solves the issues raised by the neighbors, noting that it does create some issues with City rules, but noted that it does not change the nature of what is physically happening. He asked the Commission to recommend staff prepare a Resolution making the findings, as he felt this is a very complicated site to build on. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Gonzales if this new plan has been reviewed and approved by the architectural committee of the Homeowners Association. Mr. Beall answered that he has not taken the plan back to the HOA. Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 3 Commissioner Knight began by acknowledging this is a difficult project. He noted that the architect has complied with what the Planning Commission had requested at the previous meeting. Unfortunately, in doing so other issues have been raised in terms of height. He asked that staff get feedback from the HOA to see if they have any issues with the new proposal. In terms of the Variances, he felt the applicant has tried to come up with a design that complies with the issues raised by the community and the Commission. Commissioner Tetreault noted the location of the new proposed deck, and asked staff if they have any issues or concerns with the placement of the deck in regards to privacy. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff has not had an opportunity to look at the new location of the deck. Commissioner Tetreault asked if this was one of the concerns of staff. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that this was one of the concerns staff had. Commissioner Tetreault acknowledged that the applicant has worked long and hard on this project, however given the short amount of time from when this revised project was submitted to staff and this public hearing, he felt there are still some outstanding issues that staff has not had a chance to look into and report back to the Commission before a decision can be made on the project. He felt the applicant has done quite a lot to try to address problems while running into other problems. He was therefore inclined to continue the public hearing to allow staff to review the issues outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed that the applicant has worked very hard to accomplish what the Commission and the homeowners association have requested, though in doing so it has created some other complexities. He stated he would generally be in support of this application. Commissioner Leon stated he too would like to give staff the time to analyze the issues outlined in the staff report. He would also like to ensure that with the new deck configuration the concerns of the architectural committee of the HOA are satisfied. He stated that this neighborhood is very unique and there is a large fraction of the houses that are non-conforming. He felt it was the character of the site that allows him to make the findings to approve the Variance, as long as from an overall massing standpoint the community wants to have that level of development, which would be best expressed by the architectural review board. Vice Chairman Tomblin agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners. He felt the new design, on this very challenging site, fits in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He understood staffs concerns with neighborhood compatibility and height, but was comfortable that the house would fit into the neighborhood. However, he too felt that the hearing should be continued to allow the extra time for staff to clear up a few issues and to ensure the project clears the architectural review committee of Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 4 the HOA. He therefore supported staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing. Director Rojas noted that because of the Permit Streamling Act, a decision on this project will have to be made at the next meeting, and asked the Commission if staff should prepare two Resolutions, one for approval of the project and one for denial. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that he would be able to support this project as currently designed. Commissioner Knight explained that he needs more feedback in terms of an analysis by staff in regards to the view impacts and privacy. However, in terms of the other aspects of the project, he felt he could find that these are extraordinary circumstances and could support the Variances. Commissioners Tetreault, Lewis, Leon, and Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Knight's statement. Commissioner Knight added that he was in agreement with staff in terms of staff's recommendation of lowering the roof pitch to 2:12 to be more compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. He also agreed that the chimneys should be lowered to the minimum height allowed by Code. In terms of the architectural feature at the front of the house, he was not opposed to it as it adds more articulation to the house. He stated that he had no objections to the overall size of the proposed deck. Commissioner Tetreault also agreed with staff's recommendation to lower the roof pitch to 2:12. He also agreed with the recommendation to reduce the chimney height to the lowest possible per the Building Code. Regarding the architectural feature at the entrance, he noted it was very difficult to determine exactly how it would look from viewing the plans. He felt that if the roof pitch is lowered, the architectural feature will also be reduced in height, but he still did not have a grasp on what this feature would look like. In regards to the deck, he noted that his concerns were more with privacy rather than the size of the deck. Therefore, if staff found privacy issues that could be mitigated by reducing the size of the deck, he would support staff's recommendation. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioners Tetreault and Knight. Commissioner Leon felt that stated that to the extent that reducing the roof pitch reduces the overall height and mass of the house was a good thing, and to further have the architectural feature proportional to the reduced roof pitch would be necessary. He commended the architect for the deck, noting there is a new movement in design to have larger deck spaces outdoors and smaller houses. He noted this is a smaller house than the Commission has seen lately, and to have a large deck space outside was appropriate, and unless the deck causes privacy concerns he supported the proposed deck. Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 5 Vice Chairman Tomblin also agreed with lowering the roof pitch and chimney height. He stated he liked the architectural feature and was in agreement with the deck size unless staff found in their analysis that it created privacy issues. Michael Gonzales stated that Mr. Beall will be out of the country and it therefore may be difficult to have plans prepared for the next meeting showing the changes in the roof pitch and the architectural feature. He suggested that, in absence of the plans, a condition of approval be added that the roof pitch will be lowered to 3:12 and the architectural feature will be lowered. Associate Planner Mikhail added that she understood the Commission's concerns regarding this issue and could come up with appropriate conditions of approval if needed. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the December 14, 2010 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Lewis recused. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2009- 00152): 30675 Via La Cresta Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project and the need for the various applications. She showed several pictures of homes in the neighborhood, explaining that the homes are similar in architectural style and building materials. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight noted that staff looked at privacy issues from the windows of the residence, and asked staff if they also analyzed any privacy issues from the balcony. Assistant Planner Kim answered that there are no privacy impacts from the balcony, as the balcony is located at the front, right side, and a portion of the rear of the residence and there is no abutting property to the right of the subject residence. Vice Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Minal Mondkar (architect) stated that throughout the process the owners of this property have been extremely sensitive in regards to maintaining the neighborhood character and not being any inconvenience to the neighbors. She stated that she personally visited all of the neighbors to make sure no views would be impaired by this proposed Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 6 design. She encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed project as presented. Russel Rodeghero (owner) stated he agreed with the staff's recommendations and will comply with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Knight noted the existing solar panels on the roof area of the home, and asked if these solar panels will stay in place. Mr. Rodeghero answered that the solar panels have been in place since they bought the home and that they may replaced, but not moved. Vice Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to approve staff's recommendation as conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Tetreault commented that most of the homes in this neighborhood are two-story homes, and therefore a second story addition is not the issue. Further, a number of homes have a second story wall that is at the same elevation at the first story so that there is a shared wall on one side. However, this proposal has a shared wall on both sides of the residence with no articulation, which he questioned in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff felt there was adequate articulation, as the addition is set back seven feet from the front fagade of the garage. Further, a balcony feature will be added that will wrap around the house. The motion to approve the proposed project as recommended and conditioned by staff, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2010-35 was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. 3. Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00383): 5 Via Ciega Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, showing an aerial photograph of the subject property and the surrounding topography. She showed an existing site plan and the proposed residence site plan, and explained the scope of the project. In response to a letter of concern from the homeowners at 4524 Palos Verdes Drive East regarding view impairment, staff visited the site to access the view impacts. She showed pictures taken from the deck in front of the living room of the Palos Verdes Drive East property, and noted that staff determined there was not a significant view impact. She also showed pictures taken from 54 and 52 Avenida Corona showing the view and the area of the proposed addition. Again, she noted that staff did not feel the proposed addition caused a significant view impairment. Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 7 Commissioner Knight noted that at one corner of the property there is a very steep slope. He asked staff if they analyzed that slope. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant provided a slope analysis with the plans, noting that the plans state no portion of the proposal will be over an extreme slope. Commissioner Knight noted on the plans the driveway slope ranges from 21 to 24 percent. He asked if the slope was going to be reduced to 20 percent or below. Associate Planner Mikhail did not believe the applicant was proposing to reduce the slope to below 20 percent, noting that it will have to be reviewed by the Fire Department. Commissioner Knight asked how this driveway would be in compliance with the Code. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the applicant would have to bring the driveway down to be in Code compliance. Commissioner Knight asked that a condition of approval be added that the driveway slope be in compliance with the code. Commissioner Tetreault asked, if the driveway is currently not in code compliance, can the Commission require that it be brought into compliance because the owner is making other changes or additions on the property. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the non-conforming section of the Code only applies to structures, and that driveways are not included. Vice Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Doug Leach (architect) began by stating that this project has received approval from the Homes Association for this area as well as preliminary soils/geology approval for the project. He noted that this property is the largest lot in the neighborhood and that the largest home in the neighborhood is on a lot that is less than half the size of the subject lot. He pointed out that the proposed living area is entirely on one level with the garage tucked underneath the home. He showed three trees on the property that will be removed, noting that this will open up views that do not presently existing for neighbors behind this property. Regarding the slope of the driveway, he stated that he would reduce the slope if necessary. He noted that the setbacks exceed all of those required by Code and the lot coverage is only at 31 percent. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Leach what ceiling heights are proposed for the project. Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 8 Mr. Leach answered that in the kitchen and the main body of he house the ceiling heights are proposed at 10 feet, and stepping down two treads to the great room and master bedroom the ceiling heights are 11 feet 9 inches. Carol Woods (owner) stated in the many years she has been working on this project she has been particularly mindful of neighborhood compatibility and views. She stated her intention has always been to construct a beautiful home that enhances the splendor and distinctiveness of the red the area, and not to detract or disrespect the area. She stated that she spent quite a bit of time speaking to the neighbors, and they are all very favorable of the project. Holly Cain (52 Avenida Corona) referred to the photograph taken from her home, and noted that while the proposed home will block a small portion of her view, it is a very important view of the Gerald Desmond Bridge. She also noted that this home will block the view of the back channel of the Long Beach Harbor and Signal Hill. She explained that this is not evident in the pictures because of the foliage that is currently blocking the view. She stated that both the height and the footprint of the proposed residence are a problem. She explained that, while the portion of the view is currently obstructed by foliage, once this foliage has been lowered there will be a permanent structure blocking the view. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Leach to return to the podium, and asked him to clarify which trees and foliage will be cut and/or removed to build the proposed home. Mr. Leach could not answer the question, however Ms. Woods approached and explained that the Pepper Trees to the right of the flag pole will be removed, but noted that directly behind the Pepper Trees is her current house. She also noted trees on the upper part of her property that will be removed. Commissioner Leon asked if the view from 52 Avenida Corona would benefit by moving the proposed house back into the extreme slope area. Mr. Leach thought moving the house into the extreme slope area would improve the view from 52 Avenida Corona, however to do so would require a Variance and staff has indicated they would not support such a proposal. Mark Matthews (6304 Via Ciega) stated he was in favor of the project, noting that he cannot see the proposed house from his property. He stated that the applicant has been very genuine in her concern to maintain neighborhood compatibility and to affect the neighbors as little as possible. He was impressed that the applicant has this opportunity to build this home and most people will not even be able to see it. Don Ferrara (6301 Via Ciega) felt this home will be a nice addition to this neighborhood. He felt there are view lots and wanna be view lots, and this is definitely a view lot. He stated that over the past several years there have several trees removed from the various properties to help the views for the neighbors that live above. Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 9 Doug Leach (in rebuttal) stated that the two chimneys on the house will be lowered to be no more than 2 feet higher than the main ridge and three trees that are adjacent to the driveway will be removed. He reminded the Commission that this is the largest lot in the neighborhood and the biggest house in the neighborhood is on a lot that is more than 2 times smaller than the applicant's lot. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Leach if he had considered lowering the ceiling heights so that the building would be within the 16 foot by right building area. Mr. Leach answered that lowering the ceiling height by a foot and a half would give him an eight and one half foot ceiling height in the kitchen. He felt that the 10 foot ceiling height in the kitchen was very important to the project. Vice Chairman Tomblin questioned if the pitch of the roof can be lowered and even made flat in some areas to lessen the height of the residence. Mr. Leach explained that he had looked at the possibility, as he has done this in other cities. He noted, however, that the Art Jury will not approve a flat roof in this neighborhood. Vice Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis noted that the Resolution identifies the Vincent Thomas Bridge, and felt it should be changed to correctly identify the bridge. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations to approve the proposed project as conditioned, with the exception of making any changes necessary to identify the bridge, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Leon commented that he was sorry this house couldn't be moved a bit further back on the site, as it would benefit not only the steep slope of the driveway but also the views of the neighbors above. With that being said, he noted that this is a large lot and felt that lots of this size are appropriate for houses of this size and scale. He regretted that it was taking a portion of Ms. Cain's view, but agreed with staff that this is a relatively small portion of the view, and by the City's standards, relatively insignificant. He was therefore in favor of the proposed project. Commissioner Emenhiser was also concerned about the height, but agreed with staff that it is not a significant view impact. He felt that removing the trees and lowering the two chimneys will help a great deal. He stated that he can make the findings to approve the project. Commissioner Tetreault felt that in terms of neighborhood compatibility, this project is compatible. He noted that this project is quite large, however there are other large homes in the area that are much more visible. He stated that he is always concerned Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 10 about the loss of any type of view, however in terms of options available to this homeowner as well as the amount of view restriction that there may be, he felt it would be difficult to reduce the height given the challenges and restrictions. Commissioner Knight stated that while on the property he noted a neighbor to the east, and asked staff if this project would cause any privacy impacts to this neighbor. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff did not see any significant privacy impacts, as the structure is basically a single story configuration from that area. Commissioner Knight referred to the foliage and asked staff if they felt the foliage was needed for privacy. Director Rojas explained that staff did a foliage analysis and did not think the foliage caused a significant view impairment. He noted that the foliage blocks the view of the existing home, but staff did not think it was necessary for privacy issues. Commissioner Knight stated that he was having trouble making the finding that the structure should be designed to reasonably minimize the view impacts. He understood the desire of the architect and homeowner to have 10 foot ceilings, however they would still be within the Code to have 8 '/2 to 9 foot ceiling heights. In terms of bulk and mass, he noted that the project will not be visible from the street, and some of the bulk and mass will be below ground. He stated that he would like to see a condition added that requires landscaping to screen the series of 3'6" retaining walls. Commissioner Lewis questioned who this landscaping would benefit. Commissioner Knight answered that this landscaping would screen the walls from the street down below and the homes looking across the canyon. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that there are three tiered walls, and each wall is approximately 6 inches higher than what could be built by right. She felt that due to the topography of the lot it will be very difficult to see these walls. She also noted that the applicant will most likely landscape that area anyway. With that, Commissioner Knight withdrew his request for an added condition for the landscaping. Commissioner Lewis stated that he was able to make all of the required findings to approve the project, as recommended by staff. He noted that he did not recommend removal of the trees as a condition, as he could make the findings with or without the trees. Vice Chairman Tomblin re-opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 11 Holly Cain stated that if the trees in the view to the right of her home were eliminated that would open up the view for her to see a bit of the channel going into Long Beach, which would help. Don Ferrara stated that everyone was concerned with the view, and pointed out that if all of these trees are removed neighbors will be able to look down into his property and there may then be privacy issues. Vice Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2010-36 was approved, thereby conditionally approving the application as recommended by staff, (5-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of September 28, 2010 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. 5. Minutes of October 12, 2010 Commissioner Knight moved to continue the minutes to the meeting of December 14, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Unanimously approved. 6. Minutes of October 26, 2010 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on December 14, 2010 The Pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. Commissioner Lewis noted that he may not be present at the December 14th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 23,2010 Page 12