Loading...
PC MINS 20140708 Approved 8126114 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES V REGULAR MEETING JULY 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance, ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Tomblin, and Chairman Leon. Absent: Commissioner Cruickshank and Vice Chairman Nelson were excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at an adjourned meeting on July 4t", the City Council agreed to support the present flag pole at Trump National at its current height, given the upcoming July Stn Coastal Commission hearing on the matter. In addition, he explained that at the request of the Chairman, he will begin reporting on a monthly basis the planning activity since most of the applications that come in are approved at a staff level. He noted that in June there were 46 applications received of which 37 were approved over the counter, 2 were discretionary applications approved by the Director, and 2 were approved by the Planning Commission. Director Rojas distributed eleven letters related to agenda item No. I and four letters related to agenda item No. 2 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Vicky Shahbazian stated she was speaking in regards to a permit that was issued by staff and how it affects her view at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. She explained she pays taxes based on her 180 degree view, and was concerned that her neighbor was given approval to erect a fence that she feels blocks her view. She felt the applicant received his approval on a fraudulent basis and asked what protection and rights she has. Hossein Shahbazian was concerned that he felt he was given a different answer regarding the fence by different staff members, and he did not think staff respects their own ordinance. He felt the information in the staff report was fabricated and the fence should not be approved, Chairman Leon asked staff for clarification on this subject. Director Rojas stated staff has been to the Shahbazian property several times. He explained the neighbor applied for a Fence Wall Permit and staff issued a determination. He noted the Shahbazians are not happy with that determination and they are fully aware of the appeal process to the Planning Commission, which ends on July 151:h CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00008): 28117 Elia Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, briefly explaining the project that was previously before the Commission and noting that the applicant has redesigned the project in an attempt to address the concerns raised by the neighbors, the Planning Commission, and staff. She pointed out the areas where the applicant has revised the project, summarized that the applicant has reduced the square footage by 308 square feet, reduced the height from 25 feet to 21 feet 6 inches, increased the setbacks, eliminated the privacy impacts, and reduced the individual view impairments. However, staff feels the bulk and' mass of the project has increased as seen from 28109 Ella Road and it continues to create cumulative view impairment impacts to 28221 and 28215 Lomo Drive. Therefore, as currently designed staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the project. She noted the applicant is here and hopes to hear from the Commission in regards to this current design. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. David Moss (applicant) stated that he is mostly in favor of the staff report, specifically that there is no significant view impairment from homes along Lomo Drive and that the proposed home is compatible with, the neighborhood. However, there are two areas of concern that he wants to work diligently on this evening. He stated that staff was concerned with the cumulative view impact, and he noted that with photos that were shot on July 4th' he felt that he could show the Commission that there truly is no cumulative view impairment. He pointed out that in looking at past projects, staff has only required the inclusion of three additional houses plus the subject house when looking at cumulative views. He stated this is the first project he has worked on in the Planning Commission Knutes July 8,2014 Page 2 City where there are actually four additional houses looked at for cumulative view impairment. He then referred to handout No. 1, noting the downsizing changes to the proposed project. He felt that since the applicant has an 11,000 square foot lot, which is 40 percent bigger than a large majority of the lots in the immediate neighborhood, the house being proposed is not out of keeping in terms of size, bulk, and mass. He noted that since the owner needs five bedrooms they have not been able to come up with a project that does not create significant impacts in regards to soils and grading. Gerry_Hernandez stated he works for David Moss Associates and specializes in view analysis of environmental concerns. He referred to photographs distributed to the Commission and noted that the analysis only refers to the potential cumulative view impacts to two homes on Lomo Drive. He discussed the alignment of the proposed addition with the homes on Lomo Drive and showed photos taken from the properties on Lomo Drive and their view of the silhouette on the applicant's property. Commissioner Tomblin referred to the photo presented by the applicant, and asked staff if they agreed that the silhouette shown on the photo was on the applicant's property. Associate Planner Mikhail stated she would have to look at the photos a bit more, but did point out that this photo, which appears to be taken from 28215 Lomo Drive, was not taken from the same location as the photos staff took. She explained staff's photos were taken from the viewing area in the home, while the photo shown by Mr. Hernandez appear to be taken closer to the edge of the patio. Chairman Leon compared the staff photo and' Mr. Hernandez's photo, noting that there seems to be a difference in the location of the horizon line. He also noted that in staff's picture it appears the silhouette is behind the conical tree. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Hernandez if he was saying that staff's determination of the viewing area from this property is an incorrect location. Mr. Hernandez felt that staff's determination of the viewing area at this property was very much incorrect. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr, Hernandez what he bases that statement on. He noted that staff will go into the house, determine which room has the main viewing area, and do their analysis from that location. Mr. Hernandez indicated a point on the photograph that is in alignment with the tree on the applicant's property, which is also in alignment with the conical tree and the telephone pole. He indicated the telephone pole that staff is using as a reference is several lots to the north of the applicant's property. Therefore, the red roof pointed out by staff is the red roof that is north of the applicant's property. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 3 Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Hernandez to clarify if he felt staff was standing in the wrong location to take the photographs, or if he felt staff was identifying the silhouette in the wrong place on their photograph. Mr. Hernandez clarified that staff needed the help of clear pictures and an understanding of the reference points, noting the key is the reference points. Chairman Leon noted an enlargement of the area that Mr. Hernandez submitted, and asked if the enlargement was from the same photograph that was also submitted, or if the enlargement was taken from a different photo. Mr. Hernandez answered that the enlargement was from the same photo submitted. Rostam Kh,oshsar (owner) showed several photos taken from the Oh property on Lomo Drive, noting that from the viewing area of the Oh property the top of the silhouette was barely visible. He felt that staff was incorrect in the placement of his property as seen from the Oh property. He explained that in order to see his property one must leave the viewing area and go towards the backyard and forward to the fence. He showed a photo taken from the rear yard of the Brewster residence, noting that the silhouette was barely visible. He felt that cumulative view impairment is totally a subjective matter, and different opinions will be obtained depending on the location and angle of the photo taken. Asik Menachenkanian (project architect) briefly explained the design concept, stating the style is a ranch style home and that he followed the guidelines in the neighborhood compatibility handbook in terms of the roof design, the materials used, and other features. He stated that the design has to provide adequate space and function for the owner, while taking into account zoning and building codes. He stated the design also has to blend in with the neighborhood and the outcome may not be perfect, noting compromises have to be made by the applicant and the neighbors. He stated that he looked at several options, but felt the one before the Commission was the best option. Commissioner Gerstner noted he was interested in seeing a plan where some of the volume on the second story was put some place else. He understood the architect's concern that doing so would add more square footage to the first floor or would mean grading down on the property. He noted that it appeared that it was too expensive to go down and more space on the ground floor would eliminate the upper portion of the outdoor area of the property. He also commented that the architect has significantly reduced the appearance of the structure from the street by dropping the roof and breaking up the fagade, and he has adjusted the entrance to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Menachenkanian also commented that this design, while it may be more massive as, seen from the neighbor's property to the north, has addressed this neighbor's privacy concerns. Pianning Commission Minutes JWy 8,2014 Page 4 Tony Nafissi (6525 Certa Dr) stated that in any neighborhood, when a home does any updating or remodeling, not only the homeowner will benefit but the neighbors will benefit as well. He stated this type of updating will raise the value for every home in the neighborhood and will improve the look of the neighborhood. He stated he was in support of the project. Faye Schwartz stated she lives on the corner of Lagarita and Ella and is almost across the street from the subject property. She stated that homes in the neighborhood are a mix of one and two-story homes and the homes are all very close together. She felt that to expect completely unimpeded views and total privacy is irrational. She felt that the proposed changes to this project have addressed the concerns raised in a reasonable fashion. She stated the bulk, mass, and height have been reduced and she did not object to the proposed addition as currently presented. She felt that more damage has been done to the neighborhood by the extreme contentiousness that the immediate neighbors have had to go through in the past several years. Tara Gregerson stated from her home she has a view of the silhouette, and agrees with staff that the project is attractive, has a low profile, and fits in with the neighborhood, She strongly disagrees with the comments that the silhouette, when viewed from the north property, will be too massive. She noted the setback is much farther back than most existing houses in the neighborhood. She stated she was in favor of the current project, F'atemeh Ata[y Sha[g!2i stated that the neighborhood is defined by a large number of two-story homes in close proximity to single family homes. She did not think another two-story home on Ella Road should be viewed as a departure from what defines this community. She felt that the enhancement of the community with additions like this proposed addition should be a prime objective of city staff and the Planning Commission. She asked the Commission to support the project as proposed. Joe Afshar stated he viewed the plans for the addition, and felt the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood. He asked the Planning Commission approve the plan. Robert Wakefield-Carl (6530 Certa) stated his home has a direct view of the subject property. He understood the applicants have a large family and need more room, and felt it was very difficult in today's housing market for a young family to be able to more out of their current home and into some of the larger homes in the area, He stated that he is happy to have neighbors like the Khoshars and would like them to stay in the neighborhood. He felt the Koshars have made every effort to modify their plans to address the neighbors' concerns. Joseph Lin,kogle (28017 Ella Rd) stated his home is approximately nine houses north of the Khoshar home, on the same side of the street. He understood and supported the desire of the Koshars to increase the utility of their home by the proposed addition, noting that to buy a new home with a similar view and location that is large enough to Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 5 support the size of the family would cost considerably more than they will spend to do the addition. He counted approximately eight homes in the immediate neighborhood that have been enlarged either with a second level or an expansion of the ground floor. He stated he was in support of the proposed project, and asked that the Planning Commission approve the project as presented, Maurice Assayag stated the Koshars have asked him to bring his real estate knowledge into perspective. He explained he has done quite a bit of research and found that there is no impact between second story additions and/or no additions. The people who buy homes in the neighborhood buy because of the neighborhood, schools, square footage, and with or without views. He stated there have been questions regarding impact of the addition to the neighborhood, and noted there is no evidence that increasing to a second story will devalue the neighboring homes. In addition, modernizing older neighborhoods has brought life back into these neighborhoods. Commissioner Tomblin referred to photos of the silhouette taken from 28109 Ella Road, and asked Mr. Assayag if the very large addition as viewed from this property might have a negative impact on the value of the home at 28109 Ella Road. Mr. Assayag stated he would have to see the end result before he could answer that question. Mrs. Robert Brewster stated she was also speaking for her husband, and live at 28221 Lomo Drive, She stated she enjoys a wonderful view from not only her living room and kitchen, but from the patio and garden as well, and cumulative view means a lot to her. She stated that a little bit of view taken away a little at a time will eventually take her view away. Chairman Leon referred to the photo taken from the viewing area of Mrs, Brewster's home, and asked her if she could indicate where the horizon line is on this photo. Mrs. Brewster indicated an area where she felt the horizon line is located. Linda Herman (28070 Ella Road) stated that in viewing the silhouette and flagging it does not appear that the ocean view of the neighbors to the north will be impacted by the addition. She felt the proposed home is compatible with the neighborhood, as there are other two-story homes of similar size in the area. She asked the Commission to approve the project as presented. Paul Hayden (6538 Lagarita Drive) agreed that many of the design changes made to the proposed addition help mitigate some of the problems. He felt there may still be some issues with cumulative view impact as well as bulk and mass as viewed from the neighbor to the north. He felt there have been two groups of people who have objected to this project, those that are concerned that their own property is being negatively impacted and those who understand that neighborhood compatibility does change over time and realize that the more bulky structures approved by the city, the more likely it Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 6 will be that there will be more large bulky structures approved in the neighborhood. He stated his concern was the later. Diane Hayden stated she supports staff recommendation on this matter. She asked that if there are future meeting, that some type of document camera could be made available so that all interested parties can see the paper documents that are distributed to the Planning Commission. Jane-Ashley Oh (representing the Oh family at 28215 Lomo Drive) explained that initially the Ohs did not object to the proposed second story addition because they had been convinced that there would be no obstruction to their view. However, when they carefully looked at the situation from their rear yard, they realized there will be obstruction to their view. She explained that the obstruction looks much larger from the yard than when taking the picture from further back closer to the house. She noted the yard is quite large and the family very much enjoys the views from the yard. She felt the addition may add to the property values for the houses on Ella Drive, but at the expense of the views from the Oh residence, She requested the Planning Commission deny the project. Richard He stated he is the neighbor of the proposed project, noting that he has read the staff report and agrees with the finding that the structure is too massive and bulky and will have cumulative view impacts to the neighborhood. He referred to staff's photo taken from his rear yard. He noted that over the years many people in the neighborhood have expanded their living area horizontally so there was no need to request a height variation. He noted this proposed addition is quite vertical, and appears even larger from his home as the neighbor's property is already over three feet above his. He did not think this proposed addition was any way compatible with the immediate neighborhood, noting it will be 40 percent larger than the next largest home in the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to adopt staff's recommendation and that the designer will find a new proposal that is compatible with the neighborhood. Grace Luo stated she was speaking in regards to the Brewster property at 28221 Lomo Drive. She noted that it is true that the silhouette is not very visible when looking at the photos taken from the property, but pointed out that the flags are yellow and blend in when the background. In addition, most of the silhouette is behind a tree, and thought the view was to be analyzed regardless of vegetation. To show how the addition would impact the views, she showed several photos where she highlighted in red and shaded in the location of the silhouette. She did the same on photos taken from 28215 Lomo Drive. Ger[y Hernandez (in rebuttal) referred to page 5 of his analysis. He stated the applicant is proposing a 21 foot tall building, the Oh and Brewster home are 3.5 feet above the top of the silhouette, the corner home is 250 to 300 feet away and at times is blocked by existing trees that are on either the Oh or Brewster property. He stated that photos taken from different locations on these properties must be discounted, as the view must be taken from the rear door of these residence. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 7 David Moss (in rebuttal) felt that every project that is done in this neighborhood has an obligation to balance a number of competing factors. He stated that quite an effort has been taken to minimize the potentially significant view impairment, and he hoped that staff appreciated the expensive efforts the applicant's consultants have taken to try to come forward with an accurate portrayal. He felt the Commission now has the ability to consider their own experiences of what they have seen in the field and balance that against what he felt he has proven beyond any doubt in terms of a lack of potentially significant view impact. In terms of the massing, he felt that the privacy wall that has been shown in several different presentation diagrams is not accurately portrayed. He explained that this privacy wall will be made of a glass material, as it was meant to be an art piece. He explained he has not had the chance to engage an artist, but knew of several. He noted this wall will be translucent but will be a privacy screen in that there will be no way the Khoshar family will be able to sit on their deck and look down into the neighboring yard. He felt this was important because in the discussions and analysis this wall comes off as a huge amount of mass which he did not think it should be considered. He also stated that most houses in this neighborhood have a five-foot setback between the side property lines, however this proposal has side setbacks ranging from 7 '/z feet to 12 feet. He felt the Commission can make all of the findings this evening, however he was not opposed to the idea that the Commission suggest to the staff that there needs to be brought back to staff after an approval a series of design development drawings that help the Commission articulate the kind of controls that they would like to see to this massing. He also did not think it was fair for anyone, for or against the project, to judge the project or bulk and mass based strictly on the silhouette. He acknowledged the silhouette is ugly and hard to read, however it does exactly what it is designed to do per the Guidelines. Commissioner Tomblin stated this plan impacts air and light and blue sky of the neighboring property to the north. He also noted on the north elevation of the plan that this revised plan shows the north addition is much expanded over the previous submittal. He was very concerned with this change and commented that this change may cause him to vote against the project. Mr. Moss responded that the area Commissioner Tomblin referenced in the previous plan was a 485 square foot balcony that created quite a bit of discussion about privacy. Now that the balcony has been so significantly reduced and pushed to the South, the architect had the opportunity to look at how to maximize privacy. He still believed that the mass when viewed from the north property creates privacy. He noted that he has not seen anywhere in the code where there is protection for light, air, and blue sky. He stated that when staff points out there are nine two-story houses in existence within the 500 foot notice radius, and there are another nine to eleven two-story homes just outside the 500 foot radius he has some concerns that staff and the Commission aren't looking at the compatibility from the standpoint of what makes something compatible. Commissioner Tomblin stated the regardless of the blue sky issues, he referred to the diagram presented by the neighbor, and felt the extension of the addition in the Planning Commission Minutes Jury 8,2014 Page 8 backyard goes beyond all of the other homes, both two-story and single story. Based on that, he did not think the addition was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Moss responded that compatibility, based on the handbook, should be based on fabric and makeup of the community, Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner James, Commissioner Tomblin stated that he was fully supportive of the previous project, however after visiting the neighbor's back yard and seeing the impact of the proposed addition, he could not support this project. He stated that he disagrees with staff on the cumulative view impairment issue. Commissioner James also felt the biggest problem was the issues for the neighbor to the north. He acknowledged that part of the problem is the lay of the land, noting that if you go to the house directly to the south of the applicant you can barely see the proposed addition. He felt it would be ideal if the whole bulk and mass issue could be moved to the south side of the property. He wondered if there were some way to articulate the bulk on the north side of the property and still address the privacy concerns. He added that it is very difficult to address the view impairment issues with the large amount of foliage in the neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was not in favor of the motion, explaining that he understands the need for a larger home to raise a large family. He felt the applicant should be congratulated in that they have reduced the size, lowered the roof line, and addressed the privacy issues. He also disagreed with staff's findings in regards to cumulative view impacts, and stated that based on staffs photos he could not see where that would be a problem. Commissioner Gerstner stated the zoning code is not written relative to family size, families that own particular properties, or what anyone wants to do with our properties, but rather it is written to establish compatibility and use within the community and adds consistency and compatibility between neighbors and neighborhoods. He felt this revised plan is a significant improvement from where it was before, and the lowering of the house and the adjustments to the mass has made a great difference to the structure. He felt the changes affect the view impairment issues and cumulative view impairment. He did not think the current design will cause cumulative view impairment, to the extent that the mass is kept down. He felt the mass in the new living room is disturbing relative to the adjacent property. He felt that if the applicant wants this, amount of square footage, they need to search someplace else on the property to place it. He noted this is a stair-stepped neighborhood and building a two-story house on the side where the adjacent neighbor is lower is problematic. He felt that if the applicant could let go of the sun room feeling and establish some first story mass on the other Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 9 side of the backyard, he would probably have more success. He appreciated that the proposed wall would be an art wall, however he also understood there are limitation as to how well that can work. He felt his particular mass is quite significant to the northerly neighbor, Chairman Leon stated he could make the findings for lack of significance in terms of cumulative and individual view impacts. He believed the rear setbacks on the houses in this neighborhood were done as a conscious effort so that you wouldn't look from one house into the next. He commented that aligning the rear facades of houses is part of neighborhood compatibility, and the Commission expresses that as bulk and mass. He felt that the applicant was very close to having a successful project, and supported staff's recommendation to get one more design, Commissioner Emenhiser made a friendly amendment to the motion to continue the public hearing but eliminate the cumulative view impact from the staff recommendation. The amendment was accepted by Commissioner Tomblin and seconded by Commissioner James. Commissioner Tomblin's motion to approve staff recommendation, which was to continue the public hearing to August 12, 2014 but to eliminate the concern with cumulative view impairment, was approved. (5-0). 2. Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064): 6321 Villa Rosa Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this item was continued from the May 27th meeting, At that meeting staff and the Planning Commission agreed there were privacy impacts and bulk and mass impacts to the neighboring property at 6320 Rio Linda, bulk and mass issues as viewed from the street, and bulk and mass issues from 6309 Villa Rosa Drive, There were also individual and cumulative view impacts as viewed from three houses on Alvarez Dive. She briefly reviewed the original project, comparing it to the currently proposed project. She showed photos of the twenty closest homes, noting the applicant has tried to take the design of the structure and have it fall in line with even the one-story homes in the neighborhood. She showed photos taken from several surrounding properties, noting the reduction in individual view impairment. However, she stated staff was still concerned with cumulative view impairment to the three properties along Alvarez Drive. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing, Sam Hassan (applicant) stated he took the comments from the neighbors, staff, and Planning Commission at the last meeting and significantly modified the project, which is now before the Commission, He felt this new project is much more compatible with the neighborhood, noting he tried to address all of the concerns and took all comments into consideration. He did not agree with staff's assessment that the proposed addition will cause significant cumulative view impairment. He acknowledged there may be some Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 10 cumulative view impairment, however he felt it was very minor. He hoped the Commission would see the effort put into the redesign and approve the plan. Sam Glenn stated this is predominately a single-story home community and disagreed with the staff reports opinion that the new structure size and additional second story setbacks are more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated a two- story, 3,886 square foot house sounds much different that a one-story 2,600 square foot house. He agreed with: staff's conclusion on cumulative view impact, however he did not think staff went far enough in their evaluation. He felt that this will set a precedence for the neighborhood, as the neighborhood will not accept two-story 3,800 square foot houses. He noted a second story has not been put in this neighborhood for twenty years, and this decision will set a precedence to allow larger two-story homes, which will change the makeup of the neighborhood, Julie Owens Rice (6300 Rio Linda Drive) read from Prop M language regarding hillsides and views and what she felt was the original intent of Prop M. Steve Nash (6334 Rio Linda Drive) stated he was a real estate appraiser for 35 years, so he understands valuation and what goes in to valuation, He explained that he was concerned with the impact of bulk, mass, and privacy to the neighboring residents. Akemichi Yamada (6320 Rio Linda Drive) felt the remodel was based on a self-centered viewpoint to expand living spaces and to gain ocean views while disregarding neighborhood compatibility, infringing on the neighbors' privacy, and taking away views from the neighbors. He felt the revised remodel is still too bulk and massive for the narrow and curving street. He pointed out on a diagram the three proposed windows that are proposed on the second floor at the rear wall, and have a direct view into his property. He stated the loss of privacy was not acceptable. He felt that was the two- story structure is built, modifications can be made at any time, noting the proposed walk in closet could be converted into a sitting room with oceans views by simply installing a window. He felt that a balcony of less than 80 square feet could be added without a compatibility analysis, which will further infringe on his privacy. He did not think trees planted along the property line would be a reliable mans to provide privacy, as the tree owner could cut them down, at any time. He reiterated that a two-story design is not compatible with the neighborhood and the square footage should be reduced to be more appropriate to the small lot size. He suggested the first floor should be expanded to the maximum limit in order to reduce the need for the second floor and to reduce the vertical dimensions. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the project as proposed. Commissioner Tomblin referred to the three windows Mr. Yamada discussed on the second floor rear wall, and noted two of them appear to be bathroom windows. He asked Mr. Yamada if he would object if the Commission required these windows be opaque or clouded so that people could not look out of the windows. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 11 Mr. Yamada answered that would help with his privacy issues, as long as they stay that way. He also noted that those windows should not be openable. Kevin Hamilton (6309 Villa Rosa) stated that at the last meeting the Commission inquired about street widths, and he noted that Villa Rosa is eight feet narrower than the other streets. The Commission also asked when the other two-story homes in the neighborhood were permitted. He stated that one home was permitted in 1989, one in 1979, and one in 1967. He opposed the proposed project because he felt the size of the structure is still too large, the style of the structure is not in character with the neighborhood of predominately single-story homes, the structure infringes on the privacy of neighbors, the structure continues to limit the openness of the neighboring properties and the streetscape, and the project promulgates mansionization creep. Mary Beth Corrado (6309 Villa Rosa) stated she has looked at the staff report, the revised plans, and has looked closely at the reflagging, and finds she has to continue to oppose the remodel. Her main concerns are neighborhood compatibility, bulk and mass, and privacy. She did not think the proposed addition complies with the intent of the neighborhood compatibility handbook. She pointed out that this large, out of scale addition is being proposed on the smallest lot on the street, and is not compatible. She was also concerned with parking, road access, and safety. She noted that when cars are parked on both sides of the street there is only room for one car to pass. She stated she continues to oppose the second story addition. William Sheh (6315 Villa Rosa) stated he has lived in many places in his life, but he chose Palos Verdes to raise his family, mainly because of the principal of protecting the semi-rural character of the peninsula. However, once one two-story home is built, it sets a precedence and encourages others to do the same. He noted that on Villa Rosa there are only two two-story homes, both built before the passage of Prop M. He stated that Prop M was passed specifically so that there is no rampant mansionization that has occurred in many other parts of the State. He hoped the Commission would take this into account, noting the proposed addition is completely incompatible with the existing nature and street scape of Villa Rosa drive. Donald Brogdon (6338 Rio Linda) stated the proposed remodel is an infringement on his privacy due to the balconies on the second floor which will allow a direct view into the backyard, master bedroom, master bathroom, living room, and dining room of his home. He did not think trees and hedges would be an adequate means to provide privacy year round. He stated that once the two-story structure is built modifications can be made at any time, noting the walk in closet can be converted into a sitting area by installing windows and balconies. He also noted a balcony less than 80 square feet in size can be added without a compatibility analysis being performed. He pointed out the large home on the other side of his privacy, stating that there is no privacy on this side of his residence. He felt that allowing this two-story addition will make him feel like he's living in a fish bowl as there will be no privacy in the backyard and living quarters. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 12 Evelyn Kohler (27925 Alvarez Dr) stated she has views of the ocean and mountains, and was very concerned about the cumulative view impact to this view. She stated she will be losing a portion of her view with this proposed second story addition, and felt that the City should enforce its own regulations to help her save her view. She explained that she has been trying to communicate and work with the applicant, however he did not respond to her until after he had resubmitted his plans to the City, Commissioner Tomblin asked Ms. Kohler what she would like to see modified on the plans, Ms. Kohler responded that the original plan showed the house at 25,5 feet, and the applicant lowered it not even two feet. She did not think this was significant enough for her to think that was a significant change, and felt the second story could be lowered even more. Jim Kohler (27925 Alvarez Dr) stated that the proposed addition infringes upon the view from his property. He was also concerned that, once this project is approved, how many more two story additions will be proposed, and how does the City say no. He stated that the more two-story additions there are, the tougher it gets to say no. He reminded the Commission that this request is an exception to the Code, Vincent Liu (6320 Villa Rosa Dr) stated he and his family oppose the redesigned project. He stated his opposition is with the bulk and mass, neighborhood compatibility, the loss of views, privacy, the streetscape, and the noise, He pointed out that with so many neighbors in attendance at this meeting that it proves this is a community issue, Carl Muchnick (6307 Rio Linda Dr) was concerned with privacy issues, views, and loss of open space. He felt the biggest issue was the possible precedence this would set to allow more and larger two-story homes in the neighborhood, Ray N uber (27919 Alvarez Dr) reiterated the concerns he detailed in his two letters previously submitted to the City, which included view impairment. He recognized the revised plans reduce the square footage, balconies, and height however he did not think the plans honor the neighborhood compatibility handbook guidelines. Specifically, he felt the revised plans continue to result in a scale and bulk and mass that is not similar to the surrounding residences, the proposed addition exceeds the 16-foot by-right structure height, it infringes on neighbors' privacy rights, it is not compatible with the vast majority of other homes, it does not provide open space between the surrounding residences in the area's style, it is not compatible with the neighborhood's character which is dominated by a vast tract of single-story ranch homes averaging less than 1,800 square feet. He stated the plan still greatly exceeds the height, bulk, and mass of the homes in the neighborhood, and does not enhance the streetscape. He asked the Commission to deny the project. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Nuber if he felt his property would be affected by a cumulative view impact, Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 13 Mr. Nuber showed several photos taken from his backyard where he simulated the view if several two-story homes were allowed to be built. He felt this would be taking the value of his ocean views and giving it to the neighbors, David Hoenisch (6343 Rio Linda Dr) stated he feels badly for the neighbors who may be losing their views and their privacy. He agreed with others that once this addition is allowed many more will follow. Sam Hassan (in rebuttal) stated he has done everything that has been asked of him in terms of use, height, and privacy. He stated he will plant privacy trees for his neighbor to the north. He did not know what else he could do to appease the neighbors and get the addition he felt he needed. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if they could estimate the height and dimension of the residence if the roof line were lowered a bit more, Associate Planner Mikhail answered that, based on the topography, it would no longer be a second story. For the purposes of discussion, Commissioner Tomblin moved staff's recommendation, seconded by Chairman Leon. Chairman Leon offered a friendly amendment to include a concern with neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Tomblin accepted the friendly amendment. Chairman Leon felt this was a case where the neighborhood really wants to stay as single-story ranch houses. Permits in 1989, 1979, and 1967 for two-story residences doesn't really change the fact that this neighborhood is relatively unanimous in wanting to have smaller houses. He noted there is a house at the end of Villa Rosa which is a single-story, 30010 square foot plus home. Therefore, he felt a larger home could be built and still be compatible with the neighborhood. He felt this was a case where neighborhoods get to vote. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was ambivalent, and saw pros and cons to this application. He felt the pros were that the applicant has made a good-faith effort to recalculate and redesign the size of the building. He also felt that by doing so, much of the bulk and mass had been addressed. The other pro to him was that three of the closest eight homes are already two-story homes. However the cons are very clear, and perhaps clearer. He noted this is the smallest lot and the house would be the second largest in the neighborhood. He felt this was the type of application that a floor area ratio calculation would be quite helpful. He also noted there was very strong neighborhood opposition to the project. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 14 Commissioner Gerstner stated that if the Commission feels that cumulative view impairment applies here, and based, on staffs statement that by lowering the roofline the structure would no longer be a second story, then any second story will lead to significant view impairment which will lead to cumulative view impairment. That is effectively saying this applicant cannot put on any second story addition. He felt that if that is what the Commission is trying to say, then they need to come out and say that. He did not want to tell the applicant to redesign the house with a second story and then come back and have this very same discussion. Commissioner James agreed. He felt that the notion of continuing the public hearing again and returning with a redesigned second story that may be just a bit smaller may not be something the Commission can approve. He questioned if the applicant is going to be willing to make some rather big changes to his design. Commissioner Tomblin stated he is torn, noting the actual design of the addition is quite beautiful. However, he recalled that a previous project had similar problems but the applicant was able to design a project that was approved. He stated that there is always the option, if the Commission ultimately denies the project, for the applicant to take his project to the City Council for review. However, he felt that the Commission needed to give the applicant some type of guidance. Chairman Leon asked staff if it may be a better path for the applicant, if the Commission were to deny this project without prejudice and the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, rather than continuing the public hearing and trying to find a design that will satisfy the neighbors. Director Rojas felt that it depended on the applicant's intent. If the applicant's position is this the most he can do, then maybe it would be best to deny the project without prejudice and let the applicant appeal the decision to the City Council. However, if the applicant is open to further redesign then the City Council may just remand the project back to the Planning Commission to review the redesign. Chairman Leon felt the current application is a much improved two-story home, and the applicant has gone a long way to address many of the Planning Commission's concerns, save the fact that the neighborhood has an image of a single-story small ranch style house. What is being proposed is not a single story. He opened the public hearing to ask the applicant if he wanted to pursue the re-design path, in which case the Planning Commission may continue the public hearing, or whether he would prefer to pursue an appeal to the City Council. Mr. Hassan noted that at the last meeting there was a lot of discussion on reducing the size and the mass of the house, and there was no discussion on limiting the structure to a single story, Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 15 Chairman Leon recalled at the last meeting that Commissioner Gerstner discussed looking into a split level, and his own thoughts that he was not sure the applicant could meet the massing with a second story, Mr. Hassan asked for clarification on what the Planning Commission would want to see in a redesign, a reduced size, a reduced footprint, or a reduced height. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the applicant has done a lot with the structure, but wasn't sure there was any place to squeeze in the structure any more than has already been done, Mr. Hassan responded that there is still room to squeeze in the structure. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Hassan how much more he felt he could come down in height. He noted that one of the issues before the Commission is view impact, and asked what the maximum amount Mr. Hassan felt he could reduce the structure was so that the Commission could decide if they thought that would get it below what they felt was the level for potential cumulative view impact. The second issue is the bulk and mass, noting that some of the Commissioners may have to go through the thought process of whether or not there is any two-story house that can be built in this neighborhood that would be compatible. However, he noted that because there are three other two-story homes in the neighborhood, he felt it would be difficult to say there is none. He stated he is generally not a fan of two-story homes in single-story neighborhoods, however in this particular neighborhood situations have been created that make it difficult to say a two-story home absolutely could not be built. If the applicant felt there was room to bring the height down even further, he would suggest he do so to the point where he can't go any further and let the Commission evaluate that. He noted that it appeared right now that the Commission was ready to deny the current project unless the applicant tells the Commission he can do something more, He asked Mr. Hassan if he felt he could do something more to this design to help reduce the mass and reduce the potential for cumulative view impact. Mr. Hassan stated that the difference between him and the house to the east is only a maximum of two feet four inches in height. Commissioner Gerstner stated that it would be a difficult case to make that his proposed two-story house is no higher in elevation from sea level than the adjacent single story house. He reiterated that to have a chance of the Commission not denying this application he has to squeeze as much as he can out of the design and let the Commission have another look at it. Mr. Hassan stated that he understood. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing, Planning Connrnussion Minutes July 8,2014 Page 96 Commissioner Tomblin noted that in the past the Commission has taken a straw poll amongst the Commissioners, and one of the questions he had was if the Commission would support a revised second story addition. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he would not have guessed that the applicant could have done that much, made that much difference, and not lose significant square footage. Therefore it was difficult for him to say that he could not support a second story addition no matter what. He has seen a tremendous amount of progress and felt he had to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. He realized this was difficult for the neighbors to hear, however he felt that if this were their house the Commission was looking at they would want to have every reasonable opportunity to do whatever they could to satisfy the neighbors as well as themselves. Therefore, given the progress made and given that the applicant is amenable to it, he was willing to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant the opportunity to adjust the project. With that, however, he was not saying he would then be able to approve the project. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that the new design is vastly improved, and supported Commissioner Gerstner's comments. Chairman Leon also stated he was willing to allow the applicant the opportunity to try to revise the plans and he will have an open mind about it. The motion to continue the public hearing to August 12, 2014 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address cumulative view impairment and neighborhood compatibility issues was approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser abstaining. Commissioner Emenhiser explained he abstained from the vote because he felt there are a number of problems with this project, but did not think cumulative view impairment is one of them. PUBLIC HEARINGS Noting that it was after 11:00 p.m. and per the Planning Commission rules, Commissioner Gerstner moved to hear the remaining items, but to limit the discussion to no more than 30 minutes, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without objection. 3. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2014-00163): 29000 Western Avenue Commissioner Emenhiser recused himself from this item and was excused from the remainder of meeting. Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining AT&T is requesting permission to change the existing antennas on the subject building. He noted the antennas will be Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 17 screened from view, and staff believes there is no aesthetic or view impact created by these antennas, and is recommending approval of the project. Associate Planner Kim noted that the staff report says there will be a total of 18 RRU's however there will actually be 27. She stated the extra nine will be mounted immediately behind the existing antennas that will be replaced, and all antennas are located behind an existing parapet. She also noted that all references to 18 RRU's will be changed to 27 as well as some other minor changes to some of the wording in the Resolution. She noted a corrected Resolution has been prepared in the event the Commission does approve the project, Commissioner Gerstner asked if the color and finishes will be the same, and how far out the new fagade projection will project out. Associate Planner Kim answered that the color and finishes will remain the same and the projection is proposed at two feet. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Chat Stinson (representing AT&T) stated the proposed modifications to the facility is to fill a coverage gap in, the area and will benefit AT&T customers in the surrounding community. He stated he has read the staff report and has no objections, Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner James. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2014-18 was approved, (4-0). 4. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2014-00503): 6410 Palos Verdes Drive South Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, briefly explaining the scope of the project. She stated that staff determined there will be no visual impacts caused by the equipment and given the distance and the location of the equipment staff did not feel this would cause any adverse impacts and recommends approval. She noted minor corrections made to the Resolution, stating an updated Resolution has been prepared and is ready for signature if the Commission approves the project. Commissioner Tomblin noted emails included with the staff report that reference noise, and asked staff if that had been addressed. Associate Planner Kim explained the complaints are based on noise coming from existing equipment on site, either generated from Verizon equipment or other equipment on the church property. She stated staff cannot clarify that for the Commission, as the only noise issue that has been addressed as part of this report is solely for the backup generator. She stated the backup generator has a maximum decibel level of 64 and Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 18 generally the City allows a noise level of 65 at three feet from the property line. She noted the generator will be 180 feet from the nearest residential property line and 85 feet from the properties to the south. She also noted that the generator will only be in operation during those times where there is a power failure. With that, staff did not feel the noise level would adversely affect the neighbors. Commissioner Tomblin asked that staff add a condition of approval that the noise level of the generator will not exceed City code. Chairman Leon noted that it is planned to test the generator 15 minutes per week, and asked that a condition of approval be added that requires that be done weekdays between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Associate Planner Kim stated that staff will add a condition that testing hours be the same as the construction hours in the City. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing, Lindsay Ortega (representing Verizon) felt this was the least intrusive location for the generator, and was available to any questions. She stated that she was amenable to the change in testing hours to coincide to the City's construction hours. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommendation, with the two added conditions, seconded by Commissioner James. Resolution 2014-19 was approved, (4-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-agenda for the meeting on July 22, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 pm. Planning Commission Minutes July 8,2014 Page 19