Loading...
PC MINS 20131210 Approved January 28 2014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Leon, Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Tetreault arrived midway through agenda item No. 2. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Harwell, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their December 31d meeting, the City Council extended Green Hills' Special Use Permit for the modular buildings for an additional year. He reported that the Planning Commission's recent denial of a new house on Vista del Mar has been appealed by the applicant to the City Council. Finally, he reported that the Coastal Commission's appeal hearing of the Planning Commission's approval of a new house at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West will occur on December 12, 2013, Director Rojas distributed one letter of late correspondence for agenda item No. 3, two letters of agenda item No. 4, and five letters for agenda item No. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1 'Review of Conditional Use Permit and Master Sign Pro ram (Case No. ZON2010-00402): Golden Cove Center Director Rojas stated that the Resolution presented memorializes the Planning Commission's decision at the last meeting that Golden Cove Center is operating consistent with their Conditional Use Permit, As discussed, Staff will come back to the Commission in early 2014 in regards to the sign issues. Commissioner Nelson referred to condition Nos. 20, 21, and 22 which refer to the building permit final of Trader Joes. He asked if those three conditions could be removed, since the building has been finaled. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff left those conditions to show that these were conditions of approval when the building was constructed. She stated these conditions could be removed if the Commission chose to do so, as staff left them in more for reference purposes, Commissioner Nelson referred to condition Nos. 35 and 36 in reference to the four hour parking limitation, and suggested the employees of Golden Cove Center have some type of sign or sticker on their cars identifying them as employees of the Center, as their cars could be there longer than four hours, Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. PC Resolution 2013-28 was approved 4-0-1' with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining since he was not at the last meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit, and, Interpretation Procedure (Case No. ZON2013-002231: 6509 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, noting the different areas on the property and explaining the scope of the project and proposed additions. She pointed out the area where the Open Space Hazard line is currently located and where the boundary line is proposed to be located by the City in the near future, However, she explained that because this change has not yet been formally approved or adopted by the City Council, if an individual applicant currently wants to move the line they must go through the Interpretation process. She stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed additions and Interpretation Procedure as conditioned in the staff report, Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 2 Kave Niksetat (property owner) stated he was available for any questions. There being no questions, Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner noted this is a flag lot, and asked staff if any other homes access their property through easements on the property. Associate Planner Mikhail noted three properties have access easements on the pole portion of the applicant's flag lot property. Commissioner Gerstner asked if any improvements are being done on the driveway easement portion of the property. Associate Planner Mikhail was not aware of any improvements taking place on this portion of the property as part of this project, however the Fire Department may require improvements. Commissioner Tetreault arrived and took his seat at the dais, Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. PC Resolution 2013-29 was approved, 5-0-1 with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining. 3. Height Variation and Grading Permit Case No. ZON2013-00197): 3602 Coolheights Drive Commissioner Tetreault stated he would recuse himself from this item, as he has been friends with the property owners for many years. He left the dais, Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the two applications. She noted that staff had no issue with the proposed grading, however staff did have concerns with the compatibility of the proposed home, She explained staff was not able to find the home compatible with the neighborhood due to a portion of the second story addition that is dedicated to a stair and landing area of the second story. She stated that staff felt this particular portion of the proposed addition changes the visual context of the home as viewed from the street and immediate neighborhood. She explained that instead of limiting the second story addition to one side of the home, which is similar to other homes in the neighborhood, the staircase and landing creates a second story fagade that runs across the entirety of the first floor. Because staff was not able to make the neighborhood compatibility finding for this particular portion of the home, staff is recommending denial of this particular design. She added staff received comment letters from two neighbors regarding views, however staff did not find any significant view impairment impacts to the two neighboring properties. She noted that staff discussed their concerns with the applicant, and the applicant has indicated that if the Planning Commission has the same Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 3 concerns they would request the public hearing be continued to allow the opportunity to redesign the project, Commissioner Nelson asked if the homes were originally built as part of a tract, and have the same basic design. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that she believed these homes were originally built as part of a tract development. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, Joseph Spierer displayed two different elevations for the proposed house. He pointed out one elevation which has a tower over the master bedroom, which staff recommended be removed to present a lower profile. He also pointed out the stair tower and felt the elevation is a bit deceiving, as the stair tower is actually is about 16 '/2 feet back and if one is standing on the street it is not as looming as it appears in the elevation. He also explained the reason for the stair tower is to accommodate the owner's growing family, and having the stair tower pulled away from the main body of the second floor allows to more space on the second floor. He understood the Planning Commission looks at the twenty closest homes, but he showed several photos of homes in the near vicinity where the design is similar to the one he is proposing. Vice Chairman Leon asked Mr. Spierer if he is removing an existing staircase and replacing it with this proposed stair tower. Mr. Spierer answered that was correct, and pointed out the area where the existing staircase is located. Commissioner Nelson referred to a photo showing the subject property and the neighboring two-story home. He felt that the neighboring home appears to be much larger and bulkier than the proposed residence, Mr. Spierer noted the neighboring home is on a higher piece of property, however he agreed that the overall bulk of the house does appear bigger from the street. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the staircase were pushed back into the proposed wine cellar where Mr. Spierer felt it would land in the proposed addition. Mr. Spierer noted on the elevation where he felt the staircase would be, Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr, Spierer if he had a backup plan in case the Commission did not approve the proposed stair tower. Mr. Spierer answered that if the stair tower is not approved he may have to reconfigure the bedrooms, and possibly lose a bedroom. Planning Commission Knutes December 10,2013 Page 4 Tom Hebert (owner) stated he is very familiar with this neighborhood and understood that staff and the Commission have to look at the twenty closest homes, however he noted the Mediterranean neighborhood is unique in that the homes were designed to respect the terracing of the lots. He explained that because of this, most of the closest homes are tri-levels, and it was imperative to him to have a single story below leading to the second story. He felt that the architect has gone to great lengths to design a home that has very little impacts to the neighborhood. Chet Fossum stated he is a neighbor living on the street behind the proposed project. He commented on his concerns regarding the staircase as well as the addition at the rear portion of the residence. He felt the staircase area could be re-pitched and also suggested a hip roof as opposed to the proposed gable roof to lessen the impact to his view, Vice Chairman Leon asked staff to show a picture of the view from Mr. Fossum's property. Associate Planner Mikhail showed a photo taken by staff from Mr. Fossum's residence and Mr. Fossum pointed out the silhouette on the subject property. Mr. Spierer (in rebuttal) felt that any view from the Fossum property being blocked by the proposed addition is less than one percent of the total view. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner felt this solution works very well for the house, noting it was a bit deceiving relative to the mass because of the setback to the stair. He felt that the Planning Commission has seen a lot of projects over the years that are not the best design and are asking a lot of the City and the neighbors. In this case, he felt the design is quite modest and is asking for very little. He felt the design is very respectful of the neighborhood and stated he was in favor of the project as presented, Commissioner Nelson agreed with Commissioner Gerstner. He noted several letters submitted by the neighbors in support of the project. He also supported the proposed project, Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the project as designed, and directed staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate resolution of approval, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Director Rojas noted that because the public hearing has been closed, the Resolution will return on the Consent Calendar of the next agenda. The motion to approve the project was approved, (5-0), with Commissioner Tetreault recused. Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 5 4. Height Variation, Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00324): 3280 Via Campesina Commissioner Tetreault returned to the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation and Grading Permit, She explained that, even though the proposed home would be the largest in the immediate area, given the topography, lot configuration, and project design the actual size of the home does not coincide with the visual appearance of the home as seen from neighboring properties. She explained the applicant has designed a home with undulating facades and rooffines, and has worked with the neighbor to reduce concerns related to chimney heights. In regards to letters received from the neighbor regarding privacy impacts, she explained that staff visited the neighboring property and noted that although the proposed residence would impair views of the Palos Verdes Golf Course, golf courses are not protected views in the City's Development Code. Nonetheless, the applicant worked with the neighbor to modify rooffines to accommodate the neighbor's views. She noted the neighbor now supports the proposed project. She stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, Louie Tomaro (architect) explained the main focus on this house was to not go up two stories and to maintain the existing ridge height of the existing house. He stated that, even though this is a 10,000 square foot house, the upper level is just under 7,000 square feet. He noted that many of the existing homes in the area are approximately 7,000 square feet in size. He also explained that another objective of the project was to design a home that was articulated using courtyards, which allowed him to use outdoor space and articulate the building. He explained steps he took in the design to work with the neighbors to help protect views and privacy Jane Meine stated she was speaking on behalf of her father, and noted on the aerial photo where her father's home is located. She felt that the current design of the home looks directly into her father's yard and pool area, as well as the living room, kitchen, and bedroom. She noted that the applicant did not speak to her or her father during the design process. She was also concerned with the large size of the house, and did not feel the house was in keeping with the feel of the neighborhood. She asked the Commission consider the complete lack of privacy to her father's home, Chairman Emenhiser asked if staff had considered the privacy impacts to this home. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff did not find any privacy impacts to this particular property, and also noted there is a large amount of foliage on the property. Ms. Meine stated there is no foliage that covers this portion of the property. She explained the proposed home is so high that when standing in the kitchen and looking Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 6 up at the flags it looks like a citadel above the home, as there will be a huge wall that takes up the entire upper space. She noted no pictures were taken by staff from her father's property looking up, Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that the majority of the main level of the proposed house is single story and would be permitted, in terms of the ridge line, from existing grade by right. Because the applicant is grading down they are adding a second level below, and the area above does not create a privacy impact because it is allowed by right. Mr. Tomaro (in rebuttal) clarified the area of the current basement and the proposed extension of the basement, as well as the single story garage. He noted that currently, with the way the lower neighboring house is designed, the current home causes a privacy issue to the lower home. He realized new area is being added, but did not feel it is any more of a privacy issue than what currently exists. He added the intention of the design is to look out over the existing roof line of the home below. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Tomaro, if there was anything in the conditions of approval regarding the orchard and its ability to help screen the home from the home below, and asked what type of orchard was being proposed, Mr. Tomaro explained that a landscape plan was going to be worked out and the property owner would work with the neighbors on the type of landscaping to be used for screening. Associate Planner Mikhail added there is no specific condition of approval in regards to a landscape plan, however staff could add one if it would please the Commission. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Tomaro if he or the owner would have any objections to such a condition. Mr. Tomaro stated there would be no object to such a condition. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the Height Variation and Grading Permit as recommended by staff. Commissioner Tomblin moved to amend the motion to add a condition for landscaping on the property as shown on the current plan. Commissioner Nelson approved the amendment, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion was approved thereby approving PC Resolution 2013-30, (6-0). 5. Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON201 1- 00280): APN 7566-006-018 Planning commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 7 Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the proposal was for a new single family residence on a currently vacant lot. She explained the scope of the proposed project, showing the proposed building footprint. She stated that staff had concerns with making the necessary findings for the Height Variation and the Grading Permit, noting staff felt the grading was excessive and the proposed second story too bulky and massive. She stated staff was unable to make six of the required nine grading findings, as explained in the staff report. She explained staff's concerns with bulk and mass, as well as neighborhood compatibility. As such, staff was recommending denial of the project. However, she noted the applicant has read staff's report, understands the concerns, and has expressed a wish to redesign the project after receiving input from the Commission, Vice Chairman Leon asked staff to clarify the use of the flag lot driveway, and if the applicant is allowed use of the existing driveway. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that staff is still unclear as to whether or not the applicant has the ability to use the existing driveway, explaining staff has not seen any documentation on the easements associated with the driveway. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Amir Esfahani (applicant) explained that he thought he was heading in the right direction with this project until he read the staff report and staff's recommendation of denial. He stated that he understands staff's and neighbor's concerns and would like the opportunity to redesign the project to address these concerns, and asked the Planning Commission to consider continuing the item to allow him to do so. Assistant Planner Harwell noted that she has spoken to the architect, who indicated he would be able to have a new design and a new silhouette constructed in time for staff to prepare a report for the February 11th meeting. Mr. Esfahani added that in terms of the driveway, he was under the impression that he has an easement to use the driveway, as the Title Report shows an easement. Don Sorenson discussed the trees on the property, noting they are very slow growing trees. Commissioner Tomblin stated that in looking at the plans he felt there is a lot of work that has to be done to redesign the project. He would therefore prefer to give the applicant direction in terms of the findings and the design, most notably the bulk and mass. Vice Chairman Leon stated one of the design guidelines he would like to see applied to this property, is that when there is a major view in a specific direction, the new house does not protrude in front of the view of the two adjacent houses. As a consequence, in this case the rear yard setback becomes quite important. He would prefer to see a Planning commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 8 house designed with considerably less bulk and mass and be behind the view of the adjacent houses so it is not blocking their view. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to February 11, 2014 to allow the applicant to redesign the project, provided the applicant agrees to the required 90: day extension, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Approved', (5-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. 6. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2013-00111): 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. Chairman Emenhiser recused himself from this item and left the dais. Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting the applicant is requesting more time to prepare structural calculations in order to erect a correct mock-up. Therefore, staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to an unspecified date, which will require staff to prepare a new public notice once the date has been identified, Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to an: unspecified date, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection, with Chairman Emenhiser recused. Chairman Emenhiser returned to the dais. 7. Fence Walls and Hedges Permit Case No. ZON2012-00346) Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, reviewing the additional changes to the Fence Wall and Hedge Code section that the Planning Commission agreed upon at the September meeting, including the removal of hedges from the Fence Wall and Hedge Permit application process and to create an initial site visit for a Fence and Wall permit. She explained that the City Council has adopted the new Building Code, which allows freestanding walls and fences up to 7 feet in height without a permit, and initiated a code amendment to change the Development Code to be consistent with the Building Code. This initiation has been combined with this current code amendment before the Planning Commission. Finally, she clarified the height restrictions for fences and walls on flag lots, as discussed in the staff report, She stated staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission and is prepared to bring a Resolution for adoption to the Commission at the next meeting. Vice Chairman Leon asked, in regards to the site visit, did staff feel it was clear when a permit will and will not be required. Assistant Planner Harwell explained that staff had initially recommended language stating there would be absolutely no view impairment. However, staff felt that the current proposed language has the same intent, She stated that if there is any question staff would require the property owner to go through the full process, Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 9 Vice Chairman Leon felt that a wall height of seven feet is generally a bad idea and could degrade the neighborhood. He asked how difficult it would be to have the Building Code at 7 feet and the Development Code limit at 6 feet. Director Rojas answered it would not be difficult, but it would put a burden on the residents. He explained that a Variance application would be required to add an additional foot to a wall to go from 6 feet to 7 feet in height. Vice Chairman Leon understood, but felt the question was how high fences and walls should be allowed in the City. He felt that six feet was a sufficient height and seven feet would be one foot too many. Vice Chairman Leon moved to accept staff's recommendation on everything except for the fence height from six feet to seven feet, which will be voted on as a separate issue, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. The motion was approved, (6-0). Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the seven foot height for fences and walls as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff how often then receive a Variance request to raise the height of a wall from six feet to seven feet, Director Rojas answered that staff very rarely receives such a Variance request, and could not remember receiving one in the last year or possibly two. Commissioner Gerstner felt it was incumbent on people to protect their own privacy, and given the opportunity to have a seven foot high fence or wall to do that, as opposed to a six foot height fence or wall, gives them a tool to protect their own privacy. He felt it was beneficial to give the public an opportunity to protect their privacy when they need to and he felt a seven foot fence would do that better than a six foot fence, Commissioner Tetreault referred to the Fence Wall and Hedge Permit, and asked staff if the proposed seven foot high fence or wall would be treated the same as it is currently in terms of obstructing a view, and the additional one foot should not be really be an imposition to anyone in terms of view impairment. Director Rojas stated that was correct. The motion to approve the seven foot height for fences and walls as recommended by staff was approved, (5-1) with Vice Chairman Leon dissenting. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 10 8. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2013-00444): APN #7572- 004-002 Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the owner of a property has offered to donate their property to the City. The City Council has discussed this offer and has agreed to pay the current property taxes and accept the property. Staff believes the acquisition is consistent with the General Plan as the location of the lot will facilitate staff access to Portuguese Canyon, where the Public Works Department has done drainage work. Therefore, staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution finding the acquisition of the parcel is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Nelson felt this was another case of a migrating house, and it appears the City will be purchasing about half of this house. He asked staff if there would be any impact to the resident, as it looks like the City will own half of their house. Director Rojas answered there will be no impact to the resident that he is aware of, as the sole purpose of the City purchasing the property is to have access to the canyon. Commissioner Tetreault felt this acquisition is consistent with what has been done in the past and is consistent with the General Plan, and was in favor of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. PC Resolution 2013-31 was approved as presented (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9. Minutes of November 12, 201 Vice Chairman Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin recused since he was absent from the meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 10. Pre Agenda for the me2jLna on January 114, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2013 Page 11