Loading...
PC MINS 20140527 Approved 612412014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 27, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Cruikshank led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon, Commissioner James arrived after Agenda Item No. 2. 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 that their May 20, 2014 meeting the City Council continued the appeal hearing on the proposed commercial antennae on the 7-Eleven building roof to June 17, 2014. He also reported that the City Council allowed a proposed General Plan amendment and zone change to move forward for Planning Consideration that would allow a vacant lot on Crest Road to be subdivided. Director Rojas distributed seven items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Golden Cove Center Master Sign Program review (Case No. ZON2010-00104): 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to June 24, 2014, as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. 2. Halona Point Consultants — CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2013-00476): 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Commissioner Emenhiser recused himself from this item, and left the dais. Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that given concerns by staff, the neighbors, and the Planning Commission, the applicant has withdrawn the application and the mock-up has been removed. Commissioner Emenhiser returned to the dais. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014- 00064): 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She showed a front (east) elevation, which showed the proposed residence as seen from the street, and explained that staff had concerns regarding bulk and mass as seen from the street as well as some neighboring properties. She stated that staff was requesting the Commission consider these impacts and direct the applicant to lower the ridgeline of the house in order to reduce the bulk and mass impacts in terms of heights. In addition, staff was hoping that some of the additional second story setbacks could be accommodated along the sides of the proposed project. She also displayed the rear (west) elevation and noted staff's concerns of bulk and mass as seen from the neighboring property directly behind this property. She reviewed the issues of bulk and mass, privacy, and view impairment of several of the neighboring properties and noted staff's conclusions, as discussed in the staff report. She explained the applicant was hoping to hear the concerns of staff, the neighbors, and the Commission and continue the public hearing to be allowed time to address these issues. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff how many residents were notified in the 500 foot radius. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 2 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that 206 residents were notified, noting the number is high because there is a townhome development across Hawthorne Boulevard that is in the radius. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that in some of the correspondence received by the Commission there are pictures of the impact the proposed addition will have on their sunset view. He asked staff if a sunset view is a protected view. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that if the sunset is where the sun meets the horizon line, it may be a protected view. However, if it is a sunset that is higher than the horizon line and the horizon line is not in the view, it would not be a protected view per the Height Variation Guidelines. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to display the aerial photo and to identify the existing two-story homes in the neighborhood. Associate Planner Mikhail displayed the photo and pointed out the two-story homes. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Sam Hassan (applicant) stated he and his wife and children are excited to build their dream home and move into this neighborhood. He explained his need for a large home, as he has a large family with five children. He stated that he is willing to do whatever is necessary to be in compliance with the codes of the City, and he was available for any questions from the Commission. Christine Thorne (6329 Villa Rosa Drive) stated her home is directly next door to the applicant, and she has no problem with the proposed addition. David Yih-Hu Hsu (6409 Rio Linda Drive) stated that over the past twenty years he has noticed the traffic and parking situations in the neighborhood have become more and more of a problem. He felt that when a home increases from 1,400 to 4,000 square feet, he would like to see an increase in the garage parking so that the parking does not overflow into the street. With such a large family, additional cars will soon be at the property and he felt they should be parked in the garage to every extent possible. Akemichi Yamada (6320 Rio Linda Drive) stated his property is immediately behind the applicant's home. He showed a photo he said was taken from his rear yard, and stated the proposed addition is too massive and will tower over his property. He stated the applicant will have a direct view into his living quarters from the proposed balconies at the rear of the addition. He felt the privacy from his backyard, enclosed patio, dining room, master bedroom, and master bathroom will be taken away. He then showed photos taken from the enclosed patio, master bedroom, and master bathroom and pointed out what he felt was his loss of privacy. Lastly, he showed a photo he said is of the main ocean view to be gained from the proposed second floor. He noted that there may be a great temptation for the owner to cut down additional trees to gain more of an Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 3 ocean view. He did not think that trees were a reliable means for providing adequate privacy year round, and it takes time for trees to grow tall enough to provide this privacy. It stated that additional second story setbacks, as much as 22 feet more, will not significantly reduce the privacy impact. He felt a reasonable solution is a single-story design, and asked the Commission to deny the remodel as submitted. San Glenn (6308 Rio Linda Drive) explained he moved here from a community of tall, full, compact use of the lots, so he understood what this neighborhood could become. He stated he came to this neighborhood because it is a single-story community with open space. He felt this proposed project is the beginning of mcmansions, and requests for several large additions will follow. He explained that from his kitchen window he will be looking at the back of this proposed second story, and it will look like a very large box, and a similar project built on the other side of this will look like a giant box. He did not think this proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood, and explained that the existing two-story homes may look large from the street, but because of their location, appear much smaller from the neighboring homes. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Glenn if he was aware of when the three existing two-story homes in the neighborhood were built. Mr. Glenn answered that all three were built before he moved in nearly nineteen years ago. Steve Nash (6334 Rio Linda Drive) stated he was a real estate appraiser for 34 years, and in appraising single family residences conformity of the homes in the neighborhood has the most important impact on values, as well as upgrading the interior, exterior, and view amenities. He felt that the proposed home will have a negative impact on the neighborhood values, as it would be a two-story residence which is non-conforming. He felt a new upgrade to the single family home would be most appropriate, and would benefit other homes in the area as well. He therefore opposed the proposed construction. Dr. Eva Muchnick (6307 Rio Linda Drive) felt the current vacant home located at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive looks like it is ready to be demolished and a new one built in its place. She felt the proposed home is out of proportion with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood, and though a precedent may have been set by a large home built on Villa Rosa Drive, that does not justify another, or others to be built. She stated that besides the obvious lack of neighborhood compatibility, her main concerns are the egregious loss of privacy to the adjacent neighbors, as well as health concerns. She felt that everyone will be exposed to noise and dust pollution, and therefore asked the Commission deny the proposed project and try to reach a more reasonable solution with the applicant. Evelyn Kohler (27925 Alvarez Drive) stated she bought her home over forty years ago for the beautiful views from the property. She felt the addition of the second story will significantly impair her ocean view. She noted that homes with ocean views receive Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 4 more money for their property, and therefore putting up the second story will devalue her house. She therefore opposed the proposed second story addition. Vincent Liu (6320 Villa Rosa Drive) stated he opposes the proposed two-story addition. He explained that the second story will completely block his northerly sky view. He did not think the height was compatible with most of the existing houses in the neighborhood. He was concerned with privacy issues to his property that will be caused by this proposed addition. He stated he would have no problem with a large, single story addition. Lastly, he was worried about competing for parking spaces on the street with such a large house across the street. William Sheh (6315 Villa Rosa Drive) stated that his main objection to the proposed project is the bulk and mass. He explained that if built as proposed, he will be staring at a large stucco wall looming over his property. He also felt the parking should be considered, as the street is a narrow cul-de-sac, David Hoenisch stated his mother is the owner of 6343 Rio Linda Drive, where he currently lives. He agreed with his neighbors on the neighborhood compatibility and parking issues. He explained that he has pictures taken from his property in 1964 where you can see from LAX to Point Conception. He noted that he currently can't even see Santa Monica or even the nearby coastline. He felt the applicant has a right to build a nice home, however the proposed home is not compatible with the neighborhood. Donald Brogdon (6328 Rio Linda Drive) stated he likes his neighborhood and his neighbors and explained what sold him on his current home is the backyard, noting he has no privacy issues with the neighbors because of the surrounding fence and they have views of open space. He explained that he and his neighbors live in homes that they worked hard to get and, while he understood that the applicant wanted to build his dream home, he noted that all of the neighbors currently live in homes they love. He stated he opposed the proposed two-story structure, as it will look directly down into his backyard, living room, bedroom, dining room, and bathroom. Ray Nuber (27919 Alvarez Drive) stated he bought his house both as a home as well as an investment, as its value is a significant portion of his retirement nest egg. He shared the various concerns of his neighbors in regards to the proposed addition. He did not think the applicant's request honors the City's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines, as outlined in his submitted letter. He summarized that he was concerned about the bulk and mass, height, privacy issues, the incompatibility with the neighborhood, as well as not enhancing the street scape. In particular, he was concerned about the loss of his ocean views. He felt that allowing exceptions to the City's Guidelines, such as those proposed in this addition, would be setting a very bad precedent, and forever upsetting the well-designed balance to privacy and views in the City. He stated that the number of neighbors opposed to this proposed project far outnumber those who are in support of the project, indicating that the continued organized opposition will remain significant. He asked the City's leadership to respect Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 5 the City's Handbook and Guidelines, as these have served the City well. He felt that developers will continue to watch these proceedings with great financial interest, and how the City chooses to respond to this and similar requests for variances to the Code should be expected to signal just how rigorously the Commission will adjudicate future requests for variations, and therefore whether or not the City will encourage further attempts to push the limits and consume City resources for private benefits. He felt that allowing this addition will further open the opportunity to take away more of the light and air that makes RPV so desirable to live in, He asked the Commission deny this request, with prejudice. Julie Rice explained the various correspondence she has received from the Peachtree Family Trust who claim to be the applicants for this project, She questioned who the trust is, what commitment they have to the Villa Rosa neighborhood, and felt that Peachtree Family Trust appears to be a name used by those who wish to remain anonymous in their property dealings, and not a family trust at all. Mary Beth Corrado (6309 Villa Rosa Drive) stated she bought her home for the open, airy neighborhood and the small ocean view. She stated she and her husband spend quite a bit of time in their backyard enjoying the quiet and privacy. She felt the proposed size and style of the proposed addition is not compatible with the neighborhood, She noted the proposed 4,452 square foot house will be located on a 7,015 square foot lot, which is the smallest lot on the street. She stated that if the proposed addition is approved, she could no longer enjoy the privacy and solitude of her backyard, and the view of the open skyline, ocean, and sunsets will be gone forever. She was concerned about affects this house may have on future refinancing applications or attempts to sell the property. She asked the Planning Commission deny the addition as proposed. Kevin Hamilton (6309 Villa Rosa Drive) stated objections to the size of the proposed structure; the style of the structure, which he felt was not in character with the neighborhood; the invasion of neighbors' privacy from the proposed structure; the way the structure limits the openness in the neighborhood properties and streetscape; and the proposed addition promotes mansionization. He showed several photos and stated the neighborhood is dominated by single story ranch style homes, and the character of the neighborhood has been stable since 1989. He objected to the second story, as he felt it looks directly into his living room. He also noted the structure will take away all skyline view and any view of the ocean. Sam Hassan (in rebuttal) discussed 6320 Rio Linda Drive, noting that when he first met the neighbor his rear yard was in full shadow by the trees. He therefore cut his trees to help the neighbor. He noted that if he had not cut the trees the neighbors would not be able to complain about privacy issues or the height of the silhouette, as they would not have been able to see the silhouette. He felt the neighbor then cut his own trees to expose his house so the City could take pictures of the silhouette, He felt that his proposed addition is now much more exposed than it was before he and his neighbor cut the trees. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 6 Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Hassan if he would be willing to remove the balconies from the rear of the second story, Mr. Hassan answered that he would have no issues with removing the rear balconies. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Hassan to clarify if he was the owner, and how Peachtree Family Trust was involved. Mr. Hassan answered that he was the owner of Peachtree Family Trust. Commissioner Tomblin noted that there are five bedrooms shown on the plans, and all have full walk in closets and four are almost full suites. In light of the bulk and mass issues, he asked Mr. Hassan if he is willing to reduce the size of those bedrooms. Mr. Hassan answered that he would be willing to reduce the size of the bedrooms. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff if 1,600 square foot homes are still being built in the City. Director Rojas answered that smaller homes are built on the east side of the City. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff if when residents modifying these smaller homes do tend to add a second story, or do they tend to demolish and rebuild. Director Rojas answered that mostly residents add on to the same level, followed by second story additions, with a tear down and rebuild being the rarest. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff to explain their position on neighborhood compatibility in regards to this proposed addition. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that there are very few two-story homes in the neighborhood and these are smaller lots. Therefore, when considering the compatibility of a second story staff hopes to see a design that minimizes any potential impact, such as bulk and mass. In these types of cases staff suggests reducing the height of the home and increase setback from the first floor on the second floor. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff, in terms of height, how much would the second story need to be lowered so that it's down to the horizon level as viewed from the street above. Associate Planner Mikhail felt that would be difficult to answer without a silhouette being constructed, however she pointed out that as currently designed the highest ridgeline is at the horizon line as seen from Alvarez Drive. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 7 Commissioner James noted that several speakers stated that this is a very narrow street and that the applicant's lot is the smallest lot in the neighborhood. He asked staff to verify these statements. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that in terms of this being a narrow street, she did not feel there was anything out of the ordinary in terms of the width of the street, noting it is a cul-de-sac and therefore a rather short street. In terms of lot size, she referred to Table 2 in the staff report and noted that there are several lots of approximately the same size, however technically this is the smallest lot. Commissioner James asked if this is something staff takes into consideration when looking at bulk and mass issues. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that lot size is part of the analysis. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff, within the setbacks, the available buildable area on this lot if this were a single story structure. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that on this property there is a transition slope and the applicant is trying to expand the buildable area on the first floor, and in this case the applicant will gain approximately five feet of buildable area. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he had the opportunity to visit the three neighboring properties and had the opportunity to not only view the proposed addition from these properties but also talk to the residents. He stated that what he heard over and over was the concern over the loss of privacy and the feeling of the bulk and mass being too close to their property. He felt that having the second story addition extend beyond the current footprint seems to be problematic for the neighbors. He felt that eliminating the balcony will alleviate a big privacy issue for the neighbors. He did not think that the discussion on parking and traffic is an issue the Planning Commission should be considering when discussing this proposed addition, as any number of people can potentially live in any size home. He felt that the backyards in this neighborhood are very small and encroaching further in and being able to peer into someone's property in the back seems to be a problem, regardless if the trees are there or not. He felt if the house could be brought back more in line to its current footprint would be helpful. Commissioner Emenhiser felt the proposed addition was too tall and had too much bulk and mass, and would be a very large house on a small lot. He noted that there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood, and he felt a balance could be reached on the size of the home and the rights of the owner to develop his property. Commissioner Gerstner felt the neighborhood was consistently single-story post and beam construction which was common in the 1960s. He noted this is one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood seeking to construct one of the biggest homes in the neighborhood. He stated that he calculated out that a single story home on this lot could be as large as 2,500 square feet, which is larger than all but a few homes in this neighborhood. He felt that the house as currently designed does not belong in this Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 8 neighborhood. He felt that a single story home would be much more appropriate, if at all possible, or possibly a split-level home with a bit of additional excavation. He noted that this is a difficult neighborhood to respect privacy, however the neighbors' privacy should be respected as much as possible. Vice Chairman Nelson stated he was in favor of a two-story home since the applicant has five children. He did not think the number of potential or future cars should play any part in this decision. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, he urged the applicant to look at the facades of the other homes in the neighborhood and to try to make his fagade as compatible as he could with the neighbors. He stated he has no problem with neighborhood compatibility as long as the applicant looks at the other facades in the neighborhood, he felt he roof could be lowered a bit, he felt he chimney could be modified to not be so large, and he felt the balconies in the rear could be removed. Other than that, he felt the design was a good one. Commissioner James also felt a single-story or a split-level would be a more appropriate design for this neighborhood. While he understood the applicant's comments that this will be his dream home, he noted that many neighbors also stated that their home was their dream home when they moved in many years ago, and these neighbors have lived in their homes a long time in what was intended to be a neighborhood of single-family homes. He was also concerned with what will happen if this home is approved, and in a few months another one down the street requests an addition that is similar. He felt this was a problem, and one that the neighbors were correct to be concerned with. He therefore was not likely to approve the current design. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that this is a very large house on a very small lot. He stated he was not saying no to a second story, however he felt there were a lot of things that could be done rather than this proposed design. He liked the idea of a split-level home with a bit of excavation. He was also concerned in that he had never seen a five bedroom home with just a two-car garage. He stated that he could not support the home as currently designed, and would have to see some major revisions and creativity before he could support the project. Chairman Leon asked the Commissioners if they were in favor or against any type of second story home on this lot, as this would help give the applicant some direction in their redesign. Commissioner Cruikshank stated the idea of a split-level home was an interesting and appealing idea. He was concerned about the bulk and mass of a second story that encroaches beyond the envelope of the current home and into the backyards of the neighbors. He felt a second story, if designed correctly and addressed most of the neighbors' concerns, may be acceptable, however he would prefer to see a split-level design. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he could support a two-story home given there are other two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 9 Commissioner James stated he would have to see a design before making a decision, but felt it would be preferable not to have a second story. However, he would not go so far as to say he would absolutely not approve a second story addition. Commissioner Tomblin also stated he would not say no to a second story, however it would have to be designed with a lot of thought and creativity. Commissioner Gerstner clarified that it has been his experience in doing this type of work that leads him to believe that a second story solution on this property that meets what he believes to be the appropriate bulk and mass characteristics was going to be very difficult and highly unlikely. He did not think the Commissioners were commenting that a second story was or was not acceptable in this neighborhood. The Commissioners were commenting on bulk and mass and compatibility with the neighborhood. He stated that a second story is a characteristic that leads to bulk and mass. Chairman Leon agreed that it will be very difficult for a second story to have the kind of design and bulk and mass such that it will be compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Nelson moved staff recommendation to continue the public hearing to July 8, 2014 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address project impacts related to privacy, neighborhood compatibility, and view impairment as identified by the staff and the surrounding residents, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Mikhail noted that the applicant will need to agree to a 90 day extension to the Permit Streamling Act so that the Planning Commission can continue the project beyond the deadline in order to redesign the project. Mr. Hassan agreed to a 90 day extension, ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on June 10, 2014 Director Rojas noted there is only one item on this agenda and the Commission may wish to cancel this meeting and move the one item to the July meeting. The Commission unanimously agreed to cancel the June Joll) Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2014 Page 10