Loading...
PC MINS 20120814 Approved September 25, CITY OF RANCHO PALES VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 2,9301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Mikhail, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their August 7th meeting the City Council agreed, at the request of the applicant/appellant, to continue the public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a View Restoration Permit on Narcissa Drive to the September 18th City Council meeting, Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 1. Commissioner Emenhiser reported on his attendance at the last Mayor's Breakfast. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (re-garding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review lCase No. ZON2012- F01411: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining which homes in the neighborhood were used for neighborhood compatibility analysis, and pointing out that the subject lot is not a pad lot but rather a downsloping lot. She displayed a site plan of the proposed development, and explained the scope of the project. In discussing the proposed grading, she noted the proposed quantities and that staff was supportive of the 2,344 cubic yards for the residence, driveway, and a nominal amount for the flat front yard area. However, staff felt that given the extent of the rear yard area, the 1,450 cubic yards of grading is excessive and can be minimized. She also explained that the Coastal Specific Plan notes specific view corridors throughout the City and this particular property is not cited as being in one of those view corridors. She noted that the staff report discusses this topic in detail. In addition, she explained that staff also looked at the previous application that was approved in 1999 where the project was ultimately approved with a ridgeline elevation 275.75. This particular application is proposed at 277.75 and staff is recommending the Planning Commission direct the applicant to reduce the ridgeline to be consistent with what was reviewed and approved in 1999. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to explain why an eight foot step is required on this property, as discussed in the staff report. Director Rojas explained that there are different ways to measure height on pads and slope lots. The idea in regards to the eight foot step is to try to minimize grading by setting a split-level house into the slope. Commissioner Tomblin noted a two bedroom guest quarters on the site plan, and asked staff how there was a possibility it would be used as a dwelling unit. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff discussed this issue with the applicant, and the applicant stated it would not be utilized as a second unit. The applicant will be required to file a covenant that the area cannot be used as a second dwelling unit unless future Planning Department review and approvals are obtained. Commissioner Tomblin asked how staff would enforce the covenant. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that if staff were notified that the guest quarters were being used as a second unit, code enforcement staff would investigate. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there will be restrictions on future planting on the site, taking into consideration the many view restoration and/or preservation cases that have occurred in the Berry Hill neighborhood. He referenced the Oceanfront Estates landscaping with shrubs and lower vegetation. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2012 Page 2 Associate Planner Mikhail explained that landscaping had not been considered in terms of the Oceanfront Estates landscaping, which was developed as a tract. However, that does not mean conditions cannot be added that will restrict what is allowed to be planted and how high that vegetation can grow. Chairman Tetreault discussed the Coastal Specific Plan and the two degree down-arc guideline, and understood the proposed residence does comply with the 16 / 30 by-right building envelope. He stated that if this is a guideline, and the applicant has proposed less than a 16/30 by-right ridgeline, he questioned upon what basis the Commission has to impose a lower ridgeline, Associate Planner Mikhail explained that, given this is a discretionary permit, and Coastal Permit finding No. I allows the Commission that discretion. Chairman Tetreault asked if staff has done any analysis on the difference between the ridge height the applicant is proposing at 277.75 versus staff's recommended height of 275.5, and what impact that would have upon anyone using the viewing station and how that would open up views. Director Rojas answered that no such analysis has been done other than what the Commission has before them in terms of pictures and silhouettes. He reminded the Commission that the proposed residence is not in a view corridor. In this case the Coastal Specific Plan gives a guideline that may be used to try to protect views from Palos Verdes Drive West. He noted that in regards to the homes built on Palos Verdes Drive West, City Councils and Planning Commissions in the past have made numerous interpretations of the guidelines and there is complete discretion on how the Commission wants to apply this guideline. Chairman Tetreault asked', when the former applicant was granted an approval in 1999, if there is any record of an analysis done by either staff or the Commission as to how it was utilizing its discretion to allow the home at that height versus the two percent down arc calculation that would have been several feet below that. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the record does not reveal too much detail other than the Planning Commission at that time felt that lowering the ridge line would help protect views. Chairman Tetreault asked if there is any type of cumulative view impact analysis that should be taken into account with the development of this property. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that this project does not involve a height variation application and therefore does not have a cumulative view analysis as part of any of the applications, Director Rojas explained that in reviewing the records of previous decisions it appears that the decision makers have attempted to reconcile what is a very strict guideline of Planning Commission Minutes August l4,2012 Page 3 getting a house below the grade with the reality that to do so would require an immense amount of grading and hardship. Commissioner Leon asked if the adjacent property has a single-story house built on it. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that was correct. Commissioner Leon asked if that lot had been graded down to create the building pad. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff had looked at the lot to the south and found no grading application in the file. She also could not confirm the topography of the adjacent lot, however it appears to be a flat lot on the city's aerial photos. Commissioner Leon asked if the two large houses to the north of the subject lot were built with Variance applications. Associate Planner Mikhail recalled the houses were built with the approval of a Coastal Permit and a Height Variation, and a cumulative view analysis at that time took into consideration the construction of a 16 foot tall home at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. She added that for that residence there was a considerable amount of grading that was also approved. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that currently, when driving on Palos Verdes Drive West, there is no view of the ocean along this stretch of road until one reaches Oceanfront Estates. He felt that, in essence, when the Planning Commission is getting concerned about the view from the subject property and maintaining an ocean view, in fact there is no view from several areas along that stretch of Palos Verdes Drive West. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing, Louie Tomaro (architect) explained that a key point that has not been mentioned is that this lot had a home on it at one time, which was demolished after the 1999 City approval for a new house. Therefore views were already impaired by this original house and its landscaping. He pointed out on this new submittal the setbacks are larger than what is required by the Code, and he felt the owners have reached out to many of the neighbors when designing this house. He noted that locating the house closer to the street benefits the neighbor to the south in terms of his views and privacy. He noted that the driveway has been located underneath the house so that it won't be seen from Palos Verdes Drive West, however in doing so it creates extra grading for the driveway. He noted that when driving south on Palos Verdes Drive West there is a view and by keeping the house closer to the street one will be able to see quite a bit more of the ocean for a longer length. He stated the second unit on the property is intended for the owner's parents to have their own private unit and entry and is not intended as a rental unit. In regards to the size of the building, he pointed out that this is a single story structure unlike the larger two-story homes adjacent to the property and much of the structure is subterranean. Nanning Commission Minutes August 14,2012 Page 4 Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Tomaro if he can lower the house by two feet, Mr. Tomaro felt it would be difficult, as it would cause additional grading if he were to keep the ceiling heights as they are currently proposed, Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr, Tomaro if he has had any discussions or would be willing to have discussions with the neighbors in the tract above in regards to foliage and landscaping. Mr. Tomaro explained he has already met with one neighbor across the street in terms of the foliage and landscaping and would be willing to work with other neighbors. Vice Chairman Emenhiser explained his concern that there are really two constituencies to consider, the immediate neighborhood and the citizens of the City who will drive on Palos Verdes Drive West past this home and wonder what happened to their view. He noted the staff report suggests the applicant will be amenable to changes, however Mr, Tomaro has stated it will be difficult to lower the home by two feet. He asked Mr. Tomaro, to clarify his position on being able to lower the structure. Mr. Tomaro, explained that the coastal view issue came up late in the game and he is trying to find ways to work ways with staff on this issue. In order to lower the house, because it is on a slope, he will have to push the house back. This may start to affect the neighbor to the south as well as those driving south on Palos Verdes Drive West. He felt he would have to lower the building ten feet in order to see over it from the street. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. Tomaro if he could lower the ceiling heights or the pitch of the roof to help lower the height of the house, Mr. Tomaro answered the pitch of the roof is 3 Y2 :12 and it could be lowered to pick up a few inches. Chairman Tetreault noted staff's recommendations on the grading quantity in the rear yard, and asked Mr. Tomaro if he has given any consideration to the grading in the rear yard. Mr. Tomaro felt that creating several layers in the rear yard will help absorb some of the grading in the rear yard, and felt confident that he can work with staff to come to a solution. Jason Sikola stated he resides across the street from the proposed residence, and felt the proposed residence will take away his island and sunset views. He was also concerned with where the City is going with these massive houses that are being built. He felt this home is a bit excessive and was against the proposed structure. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2012 Page 5 R,aiu Chhabria stated he is the realtor who sold the property to the applicant. He clarified that the LaBarba house next door at 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West is 13,500 square feet on one acre of land. Similarly, the subject property is approximately one acre of land. He noted that the applicant has made the offer to maintain the open space area next to Lunada Pointe and the association is in favor of this offer. Farand Ehtessabia stated he owns the property to the south of the subject property. He stated that he has been driving Palos Verdes Drive for many years and does not think there is much of an ocean view on any section of the road when driving towards Hawthorne Boulevard. When driving in the other direction towards Palos Verdes Estates, he felt that if a driver really stretches he can get a bit of an ocean view. He stated this is a large lot and the owner paid quite a bit of money for the lot, and should be allowed to build a larger home. He stated he was in support of the new project. Commissioner Tomblin stated he is familiar with Mr. Ehtessabia's property and asked him if he lives at the property. Mr. Ehtessabla answered that he does not live at the property, and that the two homes on the property are rentals. He stated that he will eventually demolish these homes and build a home he can move in to. Ramesh Khosla (owner) stated that he has quite a large family and this house will accommodate that large family. He felt that even though the house may have been approved at a lower height in 1999, he felt that circumstances have changed since then and he should be allowed to have a bit higher roof line. Louie Tomaro (in rebuttal) felt the City is set up in such a way that homes should vary and shouldn't all be the same size. He noted there are large lots across the street with large homes, and the newly developed homes are larger because of the larger lot. He also felt that if there were a house on the property currently a lot of what is being discussed would not be discussed. Because the house is gone and it is a vacant lot everything is being looked at differently, and he did not think that should impact the development of this particular lot. He stated there was a home on the lot with large landscaping, and the lot should be looked at as a site that could be developed with a single family residence that should meet the 16/30 guidelines, which he has done. Finally, he felt that the bigger impact on views and what people see in the corridors is more of a landscaping issue. He felt the impact from the mature landscaping is a huge impact, more so than the actual residences. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Tomaro what would happen to the interior of the home in terms of ceiling heights if the house were reduced in height by two feet. Mr. Tomaro explained he would lower the home through combination of things, including lowering some ceiling heights and lowering the roof pitch. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2012 Page 6 Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted that in terms of neighborhood compatibility, this will be the second largest home on an average size lot in this neighborhood. However, the Planning Commission has not had much of a discussion in terms of neighborhood compatibility and he thought there may be a general consensus that the size of the proposed home is not really an issue. However, there is a neighbor that has concerns about the size of the home and its impact to his views. He noted that the Planning Commission will be judged by what is built on this property, as it is very visible to the general public. He was therefore in favor of lowering the height of the structure, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Leon noted that the property owner by right can build a 16/30 house. While he regrets losing the view of the ocean from the street, he noted that the property owner has the right to build a house on this property. He felt that the public has been using the property owner's views for many years, and the view is really the property owner's view and by right they can build a house. He was not sure that lowering the house would impact that loss of view. He would therefore support building the house as he did not think a height reduction would serve any purpose. Commissioner Gerstner agreed. He added that if the Commission were going to ask that the house be lowered he would first like to see the beneficial impact lowering the home would have on the views. Commissioner Tomblin felt that because this is a downsloping lot, a large part of the mass of the house will be absorbed as it goes down the hill. He felt he could therefore justify the size of the house and did not have a problem with the square footage of the house. He agreed with Commissioner Gerstner that he would like to see the benefit of lowering the house two feet before asking the applicant to do so. He disagreed with staff that this is not a cumulative view issue explaining that Lunada Pointe was developed as a planned community, protecting views from Palos Verdes Drive West as much as possible. The Planning Commission at the time also went to great lengths to ensure the homes at Oceanfront Estates were developed to protect the views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. He noted this property is only two properties down from Oceanfront Estates. He felt there was precedent from the previous Commission to protect the views from Palos Verdes Drive West. He felt that staff needs to consider, and the Commission should consider, similar restrictions on the foliage at Oceanfront Estates be brought to this residence. Commissioner Nelson congratulated the architect on his design and felt this was a magnificent structure. He saw no problem with the structure as far as views from Palos Verdes Drive West being impacted. He felt this is a good plan and did not feel it was necessary to challenge the architect for an additional two feet. He preferred to discuss some solid landscaping recommendations, as discussed by Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2012 Page 7 Chairman Tetreault asked staff if the Coastal Specific Plan guideline to try to protect views from Palos Verdes Drive West would have been taken into consideration if the proposed residence was on a pad lot at a proposed height of 16 feet. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the guideline would also be considered and analyzed by staff, however the Planning Commission has the discretion as to whether there is any validity in requiring the height to be lowered. Director Rojas added that staff was recommending the height of the residence be lowered, not based upon neighborhood compatibility, but rather based on the Coastal Specific Plan guidelines. He also addressed Commissioner Tomblin's comments in regards to cumulative view impacts. He explained that a cumulative view analysis is one of the findings for a height variation. However, this project did not require a height variation and therefore a cumulative view analysis was not required. This is not to say that the Planning Commission cannot look at the Coastal Specific Plan guideline in terms of cumulative views and how the project is looked at from driving down the coastline. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there has been any study of what benefit two feet would have to views when driving down Palos Verdes Drive West. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there has not been a specific study done. Director Rojas stated that staff can take the photo of property and the silhouette and calculate where the ridgeline would be if the house were lowered two feet and how that would affect the view. Commissioner Lewis stated that if the Commissioner were to vote tonight on the merits of this project, it would be arbitrary to require the applicant to lower the ridge by two feet, or to deny him his backyard grading. He was open to continuing this matter to allow staff the opportunity to illustrate what the benefit would be in lowering the ridgeline. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing so that staff can illustrate what benefit there would be by reducing the ridgeline by two feet and what benefit there would be to limiting the grading in the rear yard, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Tomblin moved to make a friendly amendment to the motion to ask staff to include the Oceanfront Estates landscaping restrictions for the Commission to review. Commissioner Lewis accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Leon moved to make a friendly amendment to amend the motion to get some type of quantification of the amount of grading needed to lower the lot byl0feet. Commissioner Lewis accepted the friendly amendment. Planning Cornmiss'on Minutes August 14,2012 Page 8 With that, Vice Chairman Emenhiser withdrew his second of the motion. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion and stated a now motion to continue the public hearing to allow staff to work up an illustration of the benefits that would be obtained by lowering the height of the residence by two feet; if possible, provide more information in terms of grading quantities to lower the lot and house by ten feet; for staff to provide more information to the Planning Commission on why staff was recommending denial of the extra grading in the rear yard; and for staff to provide the Oceanfront Estates landscaping restrictions for the Commission's review, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Director Rojas noted that if the applicant agrees to an extension, the item would be added to the September '11th agenda. Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Tomaro to the podium. He asked Mr. Tomaro if the applicant will grant a one-time extension per the Permit Streamling Act. He also questioned how easy it will be to calculate the amount of grading required to reduce the house by ten feet, and how expensive it will be to do that. Mr. Tomaro agreed to grant the one-time extension. He stated he will work with staff to calculate the benefit of lowering the ridgeline by two feet. In regards to the ten foot reduction, he did not think it was physically possible to do and was not sure it would even make sense to study such a reduction. He estimated it would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 cubic yards of grading to accomplish this. Commissioner Lewis clarified that in terms of the ten foot issue he was only looking for some discussion by staff with the applicant as to what is involved with this issue and it was not his intent for this to cost the applicant money. Commissioner Nelson stated he would not support the motion, as he did not think ten feet was worth looking at. He felt that the application as submitted was sufficient. Chairman Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Nelson that the ten feet was probably not practical. However, he felt that the other information contained in the motion is beneficial and will vote in favor of the motion. The motion to continue the public hearing to September 11, 2012 was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 2. Outdoor lighting Associate Planner Mikhail presented a brief staff report, explaining staff's research on outdoor lighting and requirements in similar cities as discussed in the staff report. She Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2012 Page 9 stated staff was asking, to open up a discussion with the Planning Commission to see if the Commission would like to consider creating any particular code regulations and potentially a code amendment. She noted that that when the Planning Commission was considering the General Plan update there was a section of the General Plan that was added called Visual Resources. In that section there was a policy that was proposed to recommended to the City Council related to night skies and outdoor lighting, Commissioner Gerstner stated he had sent to staff information from the Dark Sky Association and the research they have done. He stated there are also cities that have recently established guidelines, Portland being one of those cities. He asked staff if they could look at some of the municipalities associated with the Dark Sky concepts and if that can expand on what he has given to staff. He noted that this is something that does not have a 15 or 20 year history, but rather is more recently developed and a more evolving concept. He stated that he personally bought his property in the city because he likes the semi-rural darkness, and in general likes the fact that the lighting in this city is more subdued. He felt that existing rules and regulations have led to more lighting in the City. He felt there is a lot of misinformation out there, there is a lot of fear that an area will be too dark, and there are a lot of prescriptive solutions. He wants to make sure the Commission has reached as far as they can with this issue. He also felt that the Commission might be able to compile something from what others have done that might help solve the problems without having to do a lot of individual thinking on the issue. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Commissioner Gerstner for a brief description of the difference between lumens and foot candles. Commissioner Gerstner stated that historically there has been a lot of conversation about watts, however now with the broad range of lighting elements, wafts is no longer a valuable measure of light. He explained that foot candles are a measure the amount of light that hits a specific surface, while lumens are a unit of light that is emitted from an element. He also discussed glare and explained that one of the reasons the lighting at Terranea works so well is their use of secondary or reflective lighting. Another thing to consider is color temperature from lighting, as lights have different colors to them. To summarize, in terms of outdoor lighting he would like to see more indirect lighting, an attempt to control the color temperature of the lighting, and try to find some way of measuring the amount of light in a measurement that works. He also felt that lighting standards should be looked at for residential and commercial land uses. Chairman Tetreault was not aware of codes addressing lighting in residential neighborhoods, Director Rojas explained there is a section in the code that addresses exterior lighting in residential zones and non-residential zones. Staff does not typically put conditions on the residential projects since the regulations are in the code as to what can and cannot be done, and any complaints are dealt with through code enforcement. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2012 Page 10 Commissioner Tomblin suggested the City establish some type of statement or policy in terms of fighting that says the city wants to be a darker skies community. He asked if staff could develop some type of statement, Director Rojas noted that the General Plan update has a section called Night Sky to be Preserved, which discusses exactly this topic. There is also a new General Plan policy recommended by the Planning Commission that requires residents and developers to mitigate light pollution associated with developments. He stated the General Plan update will be before the Commission again before it goes to the Council and if the Commission wants to augment those policies the Commission can do so. Commissioner Nelson asked staff if the neighboring cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rolling Hills have any specific requirements for their outdoor lighting. Associate Planner Mikhail stated she would check into that information and give that information to the Commission. Director Rojas stated that staff will take this discussion into account and continue with the research on the subject and bring the information back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. The Commission agreed, APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Minutes of July 24, 2012 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-agenda for the meeting on August 28, 2012 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2012 Page 11