Loading...
PC MINS 20110222 Appr d March 22, 20 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin, Absent: Commissioners Leon and Lewis were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence and sixteen photos for agenda item No. 3 and one item of correspondence for agenda item No, 5. Commissioner Knight reported that he had met with a neighbor regarding agenda item No. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE fregardinc 1 non-a-genda iterns): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-001441: 4 Avenida de Azalea Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project and the need for the various permits. She stated staff did not find any view impairment impacts, however staff did receive a letter from a neighbor at 22 Paseo de Castana. Staff visited the property and noted the proposed addition does cause a view impact to this residence, however staff did not feel this impact was significant. She noted that there are several palm trees on the property that can be trimmed that will improve the neighbor's views, and a condition of approval regarding these trees has been included. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight referred to condition No. 13 in the staff report, noting the requirement for a three-car garage. He asked staff if a three-car garage was required or if this should be a requirement for a two-car garage, Associate Planner Mikhail stated that the requirement should be for a two-car garage and staff would change the condition. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Jose Gutierrez (architect) stated that in designing the roof line of the second story, he took into consideration the immediate neighboring homes, as he did not want to obstruct any of their views. He noted that the proposed addition is lower than the highest existing ridge and that more than half of the addition is under the house. He also noted that there are palm tree that will be removed on the property where the addition will be located. James Zupanovich stated he had no objections to his neighbors enlarging their house, however he was concerned with the extension of the roof. He explained he bought his house because of the view of the harbor, and that it was difficult to tell from the silhouette how much of the harbor channel view would be taken away. He was pleased that the palm trees would be removed and/or trimmed, Jose Guiterrez (in rebuttal) noted that the addition has been lowered by 3 '/ feet and the addition was not going above the existing ridgeline. Harlan Chin (owner) noted on staff's photograph that one of the palm trees is not actually on his property but is owned by the Homeowner's Association. He therefore has no control over that tree. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the condition of approval regarding the palm trees apply only to those trees that are located on the applicant's property. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the condition only applies to those trees on the applicant's property. She explained that staff was assuming the two palm trees are located in the rear yard of the applicant's property. She stated she would get clarification from the property owner, Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, with the correction to condition No. 13 regarding the garage requirement noted by Commissioner Knight and a clarification that the condition related to the trees only applies to the trees that are on the applicant's property, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he agrees with staff's recommendation and the motion. He noted that, while there may be some view impairment to the upslope property, he did not think it was significant given the expansive view that this property owner currently has and how little of it will be impaired. He explained that he has to weigh the possible view impairment issue with the property owner's right to improve his property. He felt that reasonable efforts had been made by the applicant to reduce any view impairment. Commissioner Knight agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments, noting that the applicant has already graded down his property to accommodate this proposed addition. The motion to approve the project as conditioned, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-08 was approved, (5-0). 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00416): 26712 Hawkhurst Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She noted that, although the resulting structure size will be the largest in the neighborhood, staff did not feel it will be out of scale due to design elements that have been added to the project. She also noted the proposed design is relatively similar to the other two-story homes in the neighborhood. She stated staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report, Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Sonia Rodrigues (project designer) stated she agrees with staff's conditions of approval and was available to answer any questions, Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Rodrigues to explain the roof pitch of the new addition. Ms. Rodrigues explained how the roof would be pitched, and noted that the new ridge will only be 1 Y2 feet higher than the existing ridge, Bob Lumley (property owner) stated he supports staffs recommendations and was also available to answer any questions. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 3 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-09, (5-0). 3. !Leiqht Variation Permit, Gradin_q Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-002521: 6480 Palos Verdes Drive East Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining that the various applications were requesting the demolition of an existing home and the construction of a new home. She explained the scope of the proposed project, and noted that staff was able to make the findings for neighborhood compatibility. She stated that in response to the public notice and the erection of the silhouette, staff was contacted by nine property owners and did a view analysis from these properties. Of the nine properties, she noted the property at 3071 Deluna Drive is where staff felt there was a significant view impact caused by the proposed project. She explained that due to the three highest ridge lines above 16 feet in height significantly impairing the view from this property, staff was unable to make three of the nine required height variation findings. She stated staff was therefore recommending denial of the project without prejudice. Commissioner Knight noted that the staff report discusses other accessory structures in the area, and asked staff if these accessory structures were built with permits and City approvals. Assistant Planner Harwell did not know if these structures were built with permits, but would research this for the Commission. Commissioner Knight noted that there is a Second Unit Covenant recorded against the property that is associated with a previous guest house. He asked staff if that covenant applies to this application or if a new covenant will have to be recorded. Director Rojas stated staff will look at the wording of the current covenant to see if it is specific or if the wording is broad enough to cover the new structure. Commissioner Gerstner referred to the late correspondence submitted by the applicant which states they would be willing to lower one section of the ridge down to 16 feet and' another section down to 20 feet, and asked staff if they felt these adjustments would alleviate the view impairment. Director Rojas answered that staff received this correspondence today and has not had time to verify how lowering these sections would affect the views from the neighboring properties. He added that given the view impairment and the need for the silhouette, staff would not be able to answer that question without a new silhouette. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Planning commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 4 David Martin (architect) explained the existing residence and various structures on the property. He stated that the original intent was to remodel the existing house, but the more they explored that option the more they realized the house had probably outlived its livelihood. He noted the new proposed house is a smaller house than the existing one and they have moved the house as far to the north of the property as possible. He stated that as of yesterday they had removed 49 trees from the property, and a few more will be removed in the course of construction. He noted the Pepper tree on the property, and asked that this tree be allowed to remain at least during the course of construction. He explained that one of the principles for the design of this house is the carbon footprint and energy efficiency, noting air conditioning will not be installed and the walls are 12 to 18 inches thick to allow for the maximum insulation. In regards to lowering the ridgeline, he explained how he will be able to lower areas of the ridgeline to help mitigate any view impairment. Lqyd Kenworthy (3071 Deluna Drive) stated that the structure above 16 feet completely eliminates his coastal view and the coastline of Long Beach and Huntington Beach. He therefore objected to the proposed structure height above 16 feet that would eliminate his protected view of the coastline, San Joaquin Mountains, and Laguna Hills. Commissioner Emenhiser noted the applicant has proposed lowering the ridgeline to 20 feet and asked Mr. Kenworthy if he thought that lowered height would still interfere with his views. Mr. Kenworthy answered that anything higher than what is existing on the property will take away his view. Charles OpAa (17 Diamonte) stated he generally approves of the project, but was concerned with the foliage on the property and the proposed garage. He noted that all of the homes on Diamonte have a long setback to their garages. To that extent, he did not feel the guest house was compatible with the neighborhood and should be moved somewhere else on the property. He objected to staff using 6100 Via Subida as part of their neighborhood analysis, noting that there is no direct access from this residence to Diamonte Lane. Wolfgang Arnold stated he generally agrees with the proposed plans, and has the same comments and concerns that Mr. Boag has in regards to the incompatibility of the guest house location. He stated his initial concern with the foliage on the property, noting that most of the foliage has been removed, Mr. Martin (in rebuttal) again noted that 49 trees have been removed from the property and the applicant will be doing continued trimming of the remaining trees. He stated he would be willing to meet with the neighbors to discuss any other foliage on the applicant's property that may be blocking a view. Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 5 Commissioner Gerstner discussed the height of the proposed structure and asked Mr. Martin if the newly proposed revised height does not appear sufficient to alleviate view impairments, what threshold is there in regards to further lowering the ridge heights. Mr. Martin explained that he has lowered the pitch of the roof to 2 Y2: 12, which lowers the roof line 7 % inches. He also explained that the existing pad is a man-made pad and they will be able to lower the building pad by 5 inches by going down to the original pad. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Martin about the plate heights of the proposed residence and if the plate heights could be adjusted at the area where the roof begins to rise up. Mr. Martin answered by explaining the contractor who installed the silhouette will be back at the property tomorrow to construct a new silhouette that reflects the proposed revisions to the height of the residence. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Martin about the interior ceiling heights of the proposed residence. Mr. Martin answered that the ceiling heights in the main room are approximately 14 feet 6 inches. He explained this height is needed proportionally since the room itself is 44 feet long and 22 feet wide. He also felt it was needed for the natural ventilation. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with staff in that there appears to be significant view impairment to the resident at 3071 Deluna Drive. He felt that the property needs to have a new silhouette so that staff and the Commission can reevaluate the project. He encouraged the architect to be as aggressive as he feels he can be to minimize the view impact to the neighbors. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the Commission's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Emenhiser applauded the applicant's efforts to remove the trees and bury the utilities to open up the view for the neighbors. He stated he was in favor of the motion to allow the opportunity to lower the proposed structure as much as possible. Commissioner Knight agreed with staff in that he was not able to make the required findings, as he felt there would be a significant view impact to the neighbors. Vice Chairman Tetreault agreed, adding that he applauded the efforts to make this a low energy home. He stated that the view ordinance does not give any deference towards a house that is built to be energy efficient in terms of neighboring views. He felt that this proposed house will have to be lowered enough so that anything above sixteen feet will allow the neighbor his view of the coastline. Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 6 Chairman Tomblin asked the applicant if he would agree to a 90 day extension per the Permit Streamling Act. This will allow the public hearing to be continued to March 22nd Mr. Martin agreed to the 90 day extension. The motion to continue the public hearing to March 22, 2011 was approved without objection. 4. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00310): 73 Headland Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various permits. She explained that because of the unique topography of the lot there are no view impacts over the subject site, however the applicant is proposing to lower the existing building pad to minimize any potential view impacts and to make the building less apparent from Headland Drive, She explained that because the entire second floor is located in the center of the building footprint it has significantly larger setbacks than most of the properties on Headland Drive. These large setbacks also make the project appear less bulky and massive from the street. She stated that staff feels the numerous articulations incorporated on the house also help the structure look less massive and bulky. She stated there are no privacy impacts to the abutting properties, as the second floor has no windows proposed on the east or west fagade. She noted neighbor's concerns with the proposed pool house, however explained that the Code allows for accessory structures to be 12 feet in total height, and that such a proposal would be reviewed and approved by staff over the counter. She stated that staff felt all of the required findings could be met and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Tomblin noted one of the submitted letters raised concerns with the drainage and asked staff to comment. Assistant Planner Kim explained that drainage is typically reviewed during the Building and Safety plan check process. She noted that the applicant's engineer is present if the Commission has any further questions. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Chris Engen (applicant) stated he wants to build a four bedroom house with a detached pool house, and also wants to be a good neighbor and address his neighbors' concerns. He explained that the rear portion of his property has been overgrown and unused for many years, and he has since trimmed and removed much of the overgrown vegetation. He stated that he has no plans to plant a 12-foot or higher hedge along the side of the property near the Wyman residence. He has tried to assure the Wymans that he will work closely with them when they do their landscaping to find a balance between their privacy needs and the Wyman's side yard view. He felt that his proposed project is Ranning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 7 consistent with the neighborhood and meets the rules of the City and asked the Commission to approve the project. Don Thursby (architect) explained that the original proposal was to set the house further back on the property and the pool was only 30 inches below the finish floor of the new house. Staff indicated they thought this would result in too much grading for the site, so he redesigned the project by putting the house closer to the street, lowering the pool and hence lowering the pool house to accommodate staffs request. He stated he was available to answer any questions. Cole Shoemaker (general contractor) explained that when he heard there was a question regarding the drainage on the property he began discussing the issue with the civil engineer. He explained how currently the drainage from several properties, including the applicants, goes down hill and ends up in a concrete swale. He noted that building this new home will not increase the drainage into the swale, since the property currently drains into the swale. He explained that the civil engineer's job is to get the water from the applicant's property to the drainage swale in a manner that doesn't cause any erosion to the properties between the subject lot and the swale. He stated that this engineering will be check during the Building and Safety plan check. Cathi Wyman (77 Headland Drive) stated she brought additional pictures as she did not think the pictures presented by staff were a true picture of what is happening at the site. She stated Headland Drive is very unique in that every house is on a large lot, openness, privacy, and a view. She stated the street was designed with views in mind, and felt that the views she has enjoyed from her home are in jeopardy. She explained that the views from the main living area of her home are in jeopardy due to the proposed pool house. She also felt that the open and expansive feel to her property is being dramatically altered by the building structure that is directly in her field of vision. She added that she has no objections to the building of the main residence, just the pool house that will dominate her field of vision. She also stated that there are no other outdoor structures in the neighborhood, except for open sided gazebos. She asked the Commission to use the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines to help evaluate this accessory building. She felt that if the height of the pool house were lowered by 2 feet the applicant could maintain their pool house and privacy and she would retain her view and not such an intrusive feel. Charlene O'Neil stated this new house will be the largest house in the neighborhood, and is on a half acre parcel. She stated that currently you walk into the Wyman's house and have a wonderful city view. This view will be gone if the pool house is built as proposed. She questioned why the pool house couldn't be placed on the other side of the property. Chris Engen (in rebuttal) explained that there is a privacy issue in his backyard, as the lot next to his is approximately 6 to 7 feet higher than his lot. Therefore, to get privacy he will have to plant some foliage. He felt that the pool house is probably less than what he would need to plant if he was going to create privacy for himself. He explained Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 8 that he is moving into a new neighborhood and wants to be a good neighbor, but can see that he is not giving the Wymans what they want. He did not know how to do that and not have the pool house where it is currently located. He noted that there is an easement below the pool house, so he can't move it further down the property. Moving the pool house to the other side of the property will cause grading issues. He added that he has removed so much vegetation and so many trees from the property that he is sure he has opened up views for his neighbors that weren't there before. He stated he is trying to work with the neighbors to make sure he doesn't create an eyesore next to his neighbor's yard and at the same time is trying to follow the rules of the City. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if there was a reason the property couldn't be graded down a little more in terms of the pool house or if there could be grading in another location on the lot to move the pool house. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff is always concerned with the quantity of grading, and if it is not necessary staff usually will advise against the grading. For this property she noted there is a pad where the current house is located and then it slopes down to another flat area. She noted that moving the pool house to the other side of the property would require more grading, and from staff's standpoint improvements that are compliant with the code that would require less grading are always more favorable. Director Rojas added that the staffs direction is because of the grading findings that must be made, primarily the finding that states the grading does not exceed the amount that is necessary for the primary use of the lot. He stated there is another finding regarding minimizing disturbances to the natural contours. He also explained that the Planning Commission, has very little latitude in terms of the pool house, as it meets the height limit and setback requirements. He noted that even if the Planning Commission finds the pool house causes a significant view impact, they cannot reduce the height lower than the by-right height limit. Commissioner Gerstner asked how much grading was currently associated with this project. Assistant Planner Kim answered the applicant is proposing 549 cubic yards of grading. Commissioner Knight explained that while at the site he noted that the uphill neighbors have specifically kept low walls and low landscaping to allow for an unobstructed view corridor. He therefore was having trouble making a neighborhood compatibility finding. If the structure is placed where proposed it doesn't seem to fit in with the main design of this neighborhood in that there are no structures in this view corridor. Director Rojas clarified that the Planning Commission cannot make findings for this pool house in terms of view impact. However, the structure can be looked at through neighborhood compatibility issues, Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 5 Commissioner Knight referred to the comparison chart in the staff report which looks at the 20 closest homes. He discussed the residence at 15 Headland, which is a 9,987 square foot home. He explained that he researched the minutes from the meeting where this residence was approved and found that three of the Commissioners at the time felt the residence would be too bulky and massive. He also noted that staff had a recommendation not to approve the project because of its bulk and mass. He therefore was not including this residence when looking at the comparison chart. With that, he felt that this proposed residence is at the upper end of homes in the neighborhood in terms of size and was too bulky and massive for the street. He noted that this house is quite visible from the street, while 15 Headland cannot been seen from the street. He was also concerned with the pool house location and its impact to the neighboring property. Chairman Tomblin re-opened the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser spoke to the architect and explained the Commission seems to be wrestling with the rules versus neighbors versus views. He noted that the architect's profession is about options and possibilities and asked Mr. Thursby if he had any other alternatives for the Commission to consider. Mr. Thursby noted that the roof of the pool house has been lowered to a 3:12 pitch, which is as low as he could go. He explained that because of the angle the Wymans view of this structure from above, if he were to move the pool house closer to the Wyman's property it would actually reduce the view impairment. He also explained that the pool house is lower than the pool, and this is a concession the owners made to get this structure as low as possible. He stated that the roof is not a ridge roof, but rather a hip roof, so the impairment only occurs for a 6 or 7 foot length in one small section. Commissioner Knight questioned why the roof pitch couldn't be lowered or a flat roof created. Assistant Planner Kim stated that staff had a concern with a flat roof because of neighborhood compatibility. She pointed out that when looking at the twenty closest homes, most include primarily a hip or gable roof. Mr. Thursby questioned if there is a target he should aim for as far as the height of the accessory structure. He noted that if there is potentially a six inch view impairment of some distant city lights, he questioned if he really need to lower the structure 18 inches below that view line. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner stated it is difficult to judge impacts from photos, noting it is easy to take a photo that looks worse than it really is and equally as easy to misunderstand a photograph and find that something is much closer than it appears in Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 10 the photo. He felt there is a lot of grading going on and a lot of house going on, and to the extent as to how the pool house impacts the neighbors could be minimized, he would like to see that happen. He felt the applicant is willing to work with the neighbor to help minimize the impact of the pool house, and if it is the City's concern about grading that has driven the solution before the Commission, he was in favor of easing some of those grading restrictions so that what the owner and the neighbor seem to want can be accomplished. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that in the past the Commission has held to the belief that neighborhood compatibility has to be taken from the street, However, with regards to this project, he recognized the pool house could have a significant impact on the Wyman property but felt the only reason the pool house is an issue is because of the view impact. He therefore was having a problem with the concept of not approving this for neighborhood compatibility reasons when he thinks it's really a view issue, and this is a by-right structure. He stated he would not be happy to have this happen to him as a neighbor, but people also have property rights that are set up by the code. He also noted that if the applicant came in with the pool house only it would be an over the counter approval and never be seen by the Planning Commission. He stated he has a lot of sympathy, but didn't think he had any discretion. Commissioner Knight stated that even if the pool house did not create a view impact he would have concerns with neighborhood compatibility. He also noted that he has concerns with the bulk and mass of the proposed residence. He stated that when he takes out the large house at 15 Headland, this project is substantially larger than the others in the neighborhood. It also noted the 5-12 pitch makes the house stand out on the street. He pointed out the area of the pool equipment, and requested that if this project is approved that some type of enclosure be required for the equipment. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff if the pool house were removed from the plan and the residence was approved and built, could the homeowner then apply to the City to build the pool house in this location and would that application be an over the counter ,approval. Director Rojas answered that the applicant could apply to the City for the pool house as an over the counter approval, but they would have to wait until all final inspections have been done on the house. Vice Chairman Tetreault commented that this entire project is a very substantial project being requested in a neighborhood that is going through a significant change. He stated he was concerned about the size of the main residence in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Chairman Tomblin explained he used neighborhood compatibility in making his decision, as he agreed with Commissioner Knight's comments. He stated that the neighborhood compatibility in the Headland area is the openness of the larger lots. Because this proposed home is so large, and because the proposed pool house is put Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 11 on the lot taking up even more open area on the lot, he felt that the pool house takes away the neighborhood compatibility of openness, and he was having trouble making that finding. Chairman Tomblin re-opened the public hearing. Don ThuLsb A appreciated the Commissioner's comments. He pointed out that he intentionally located the pool equipment in the same area the Wyman's have their pool equipment, and thought that was a compatible match. He pointed out that they left the corridor between the master bedroom and the pool house open to ensure the neighbors maintain the view, but it also diminishes the Engen's privacy. He suggested lowering a portion of the pool decking and the pool house by one foot to mitigate the neighbor's concerns. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the project as recommended by staff with the added condition that the pool house be lowered an additional foot as suggested by the architect, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Knight felt that a condition should be added to the approval requiring some type of mitigating measure, possibly a wall or an enclosure, in regards to the noise from the pool equipment. Commissioner Gerstner amended his motion to include a condition that the noise from the pool equipment be mitigated in some manner, possibly by a wall or an enclosure, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Knight stated that he could not support the motion because of his issues with neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Tetreault explained that even though he voted against the approval of the residence at 15 Headland Drive, it was approved by the Commission and built, and he therefore felt it should be considered when looking at the homes in the neighborhood. He stated that this is a neighborhood very much in transition, and while this particular project is a very close call, he felt it was compatible with the neighborhood. He therefore stated he could favor the motion. The motion to approve the project as amended, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-10 was approved, (3-2) with Commissioners Knight and Emenhiser dissenting. 5. Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00343): 27921 Palos Verdes Drive East Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report and explained the scope of the project. She noted that due to heavily sloping nature of the site, the project cannot be seen from Palos Verdes Drive East and there are no properties immediately in front of it at a Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 12 higher elevation. She noted that although the proposed rotunda entry is unique to Palos Verdes Drive East, all other proposed architectural features, building materials, and design elements are found on other neighboring homes. She stated that staff received thirty three letters of support for this project and three letters of opposition, however of those three letters one is now in support of the project. She stated that staff feels there are no view impacts due to the topography of the site, no privacy impacts due to the setbacks and no proposed east facing windows on the second floor, and staff was able to make all of the required findings. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that the proposed entry is quite prominent, and that the Guidelines state that such prominent entries are not favored. He asked staff how they evaluated the entryway. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the distance between the existing front fagade and where the entryway will be located is over fifty feet. Further, the entry feature is towards the rear of the property and cannot be seen from any public right-of-way or neighbor residence. Staff felt that, even though the rotunda entry is unique, the entry is not prominent. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Sherif Khattab stated he is the neighbor to the south of the proposed project and supports the project. He stated his only concern is his view in front of him is significantly impacted by the foliage on the applicant's property and the neighboring property. He asked that a condition be added to the approval that the trees on the applicant's property be removed. Kavvon Javid (applicant) stated he was available for questions. He did not think trimming down the trees would be a problem, as he wanted to be a good neighbor. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they looked at the balconies when looking at privacy impacts. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff looked at the entire second floor of the proposed structure. Staff visited 27907 Palos Verdes Drive East and was not able to see any part of the silhouette except for small little sections between some trees. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight noted that this house will be considerably larger than the closest twenty homes and he had issues with the entry feature. He felt that what may mitigate this is the fact that the house is so far from the street and can't be seen from the street Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 13 or neighboring properties. However, he did not want the proposed turret to be a design element that is used as comparison for future developments. He was concerned that approving the project would be saying the Commission approves that design element. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that because the house is set so far back from the street and because it has neighborhood support, that he could support the proposed project. Commissioner Gerstner stated he supported the project, but strongly recommended that the applicant have his architect relook at the design of the turret. Vice Chairman Tetreault agreed this is a prominent entrance and this type of feature has not been encouraged by the Commission in the past. However, because nobody but the owner can see this particular feature, he was inclined to vote in favor of the project. He noted that he would not consider this to be precedence for future residences because of the unique circumstances. Chairman Tomblin felt this project was difficult to approve based on neighborhood compatibility, and he would therefore not vote in favor of the project. The Commission approved the project as recommended by staff, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-11, (3-2) with Commissioner Knight and Chairman Tomblin dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of January 25,_2011 Commissioner Knight referred to agenda item No. 7 and asked that comments he made regarding solar panel efficiency be added to the minutes. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to adopt the minutes as modified, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on March 8, 2011 The pre-agenda was discussed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 22,2011 Page 94