Loading...
PC MINS 19990223T 1, APPROVED 03/09/99 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 00 P M. by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Slayden led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Clark, Paas, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon, and Chairman Cartwright Absent None Also present were Director/Secretary Rous, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Paris. It was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright, (7-0). LONJ,I11itIIi•Ilq-.% dC+� Council PolicyItems ems Director/Secretary Rous updated the Commission on the City Council meeting of February 16, 1999 He discussed the revision to the Conditional Use Permit for Ocean Trails to allow for adjustment in the fill amount in the eastern tract He also explained the City Council had approved, in concept, an affordable housing impact fee for non-residential developments Commissioner Clark commented that he had read the City Council minutes of January 19, 1999 and specifically the item relating to the City taking a position on the aircraft noise He felt that in his neighborhood the problem had not become c any better He felt this was a mayor quality of life issue and asked Director/Secretary Rous to forward that information to the City Council. Commissioner Albeno stated he would like to see the City take a stand on the airport expansion since it would have an affect in this City Staff Director/Secretary Rous informed the Commission of a complimentary seminar offered by Richards, Watson, and Gershon regarding the Brown Act. Commission Commissioner Slayden reported that he had breakfast with Mike Mohler, from Destination Resorts, and Sonya Hayes CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Cartwright pointed out on page 4, paragraph 9, the sentence "With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright' be taken out as it was repetitive Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the Minutes of February 9, 1999 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Clark and Vannorsdall abstaining since they were not at that meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation No. 866 and Gradinq Permit No. 2053: 30052 Avenida Classica. Applicant: Raju Chhabria. Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, stating the project had been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1998 At that time the Commission had instructed the applicant to work with staff to reduce the size of the structure and increase the north side setback He explained that the new structure height had increased by six inches but maintained an overall height of 26 feet, the open space on the property had increased by almost 9 percent, the overall structure size has been reduced by almost 1,000 square feet, and the amount of grading has also been reduced He commented that staff felt the applicant had complied with recommendations Planning Commission Minutes February 23,1999 Page 2 • • made by the Planning Commission and staff was therefore recommending approval of the project Commissioner Paris questioned whether there was any reduction in the square footage of the second floor Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that the largest reduction was on the ground floor of the residence. Commissioner Vannorsdall commented that at the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1998, the Commission had requested the applicant reduce the size of the residence to at least 5,500 square feet In tonight's staff report, the structure size is stated at 6,254 square feet. He questioned why staff was recommending approval, even though the proposed structure is not in keeping with the Planning Commission's direction. Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that the actual living area was approximately 5,500 square feet, and the additional square footage listed was for the 640 square foot three -car garage. Commissioner Vannorsdall disagreed He also felt that it wasn't just a case of a large pad size. The residence being considered is on an upslope lot and will look massive compared to the other houses near it. He stated that part of the General Plan specifies neighborhood compatibility and he felt very strongly that this proposal was not compatible with the neighborhood He did not understand why Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project when the Commission had given specific direction on redesigning which he did not feel had been followed Chairman Cartwright stated that he recalled an issue with privacy and the Commission had asked the applicant to consider moving the residence five feet towards the south of the property He wondered if that move had created the privacy issue at 30134 Avenida Celestial Drive. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that staff did not feel moving the residence five feet towards the south would help the privacy issue, primarily because the proposed second story windows on the north elevation were in an area that overlooked the roof area of the residence to the north, rather than the residence itself Commissioner Albeno recalled at the previous meeting the Commission had suggested turning the proposed swimming pool around so the structure could be moved farther to the south so there would be more space between the new residence and the existing neighbor's residence to the north Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Louis Tomaro, (architect) 1001 6th Street, #100 San Pedro stated it was his understanding from the direction of the Planning Commission at the November hearing, to reduce the square footage of the proposed residence by 1,000 square feet and address the privacy issues He stated that is what he had done He stated that in regards to setbacks, the residence is proposed to be setback 10 feet on the northerly side, as recommended by the Commission The square footage of the driveway in the front of the residence has been reduced, and they had reduced the amount of grading in the rear of the lot by stepping the backyard up and having the yard at a mid level in the rear He stated the owners of the property have reviewed the new proposals with the neighbors He felt the neighbors to the north were in favor of the project but would prefer that the proposed structure be moved back an additional five feet (to the east) He stated that the applicant would be willing to do this Further, he was aware of the issue of privacy with the neighbors to the south In talking with staff, he had addressed making the windows smaller or possibly making the windows opaque Commissioner Paris asked for clarification regarding the lot coverage of 2,656 square feet for the pool and patio He wondered if that would be all hardscape Mr Tomaro stated that all the hardscape area would be under the current proposal Commissioner Paris still had concern with the mass of the residence from the front. He wondered why the pool couldn't be moved to the back, cutting back on the grading, and making the second story a little smaller Mr Tomaro answered that the view of this property was to the south Therefore, he had designed the house to take advantage of the potential of the property He did not feel putting the pool in the back would be a good idea, as the amount of grading would have to be increased to build the yard area for the pool He also felt that, while there may be room to put the pool in the back, the owners had a right to use the property in a way they would like to use it. By putting the pool where it is on the plans, the owners were trying to maximize the use of the pool and it's connection to the rooms around it. Commissioner Paris also questioned the mass of the house in the front of the property and how this could be addressed Mr Tomaro responded that in looking at the elevations it showed that the second floor actually steps back from the front of the house He commented that he had tried to do a series of stepping to minimize the facade height of the structure Commissioner Alberio felt that moving the pool to the back of the house, which is at a higher elevation, would increase the view from the pool area. Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Tomaro concluded by stating he had satisfied what he thought was the Planning Commission's concerns from the last meeting, and had worked with the neighbors and tried to satisfy their issues Dean Pham 30040 Avenida Classica stated he had met with the owners and architect of the proposed residence and felt he would be satisfied with the proposal as long as the residence was moved an additional five feet to the east of the property This would give him a little more view than the previous proposal. He stated that the owner was agreeable to moving the residence five feet further from the street. Lily Tse 30134 Avenida Celestial stated that she previously did not have any objections to the building of the residence, however after looking at the silhouette that was erected, she realized that the building was quite close to her back yard and looked directly into her pool area. She had reviewed the proposals for the modified windows, and wanted some assurance that the windows would not look directly into her pool area. She hoped that any balconies proposed did not look directly into her swimming pool area She was concerned about the size of the house, as most houses in the area are 4,000 to 4,500 square feet. Finally, she stated her concern over the debris that may be left in the neighborhood while the construction was being done, and wanted to know what the owner proposed to do to keep the debris at a minimum Commissioner Alberio asked Ms Tse if making the windows opaque would satisfy her privacy concerns. Ms Tse responded that would be fine Commissioner Clark asked staff for clarification on staff s analysis regarding these windows Assistant Planner Schonborn responded that with a larger window there would be a view into a portion of the pool area and the backyard He felt that with the smaller windows you would not be able to see into the pool area. He commented the architect would be willing to make these windows opaque in certain areas Commissioner Clark commented that if the smaller windows alone relieved the privacy issue, he did not see the need to also make them opaque Commissioner Vannorsdall added that the windows were view windows from a bedroom, and to maintain this view they could possible be located high enough that there would be no opportunity to look down at the pool area Chairman Cartwright stated that if staff believed the smaller windows did not create a privacy issue he did not feel the windows should be raised or made opaque Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1999 Page 5 Chairman Cartwright asked Ms Tse if, when she purchased her property, she was aware that the property behind her was a buildable lot and that anyone who built there would most likely be able to see into her backyard Ms Tse answered that when they purchased the property they were aware that someone could build on the lot. Chairman Cartwright asked Ms Tse if she had considered planting any foliage in her backyard to help enhance their privacy Ms Tse responded that they had recently planted five trees along the fence in their backyard Chairman Cartwright also asked Ms Tse if she was aware that the people who owned that vacant lot were entitled to develop it and she would lose a little of her privacy Ms Tse agreed. Assistant Planner Schonborn pointed out that the elevation drawing before the Commission indicated the original window proposal He clarified where the reduced windows would be located and pointed out that they would end up higher than the original windows, approximately five feet above the finished floor He felt these higher windows would allow the residents to look out, rather than down Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Albeno was satisfied with the staff clarification of the window height. He felt that an extra burden was being placed on the Tses by having to plant trees in their yard to help protect their privacy He felt the hardscape needed to be reduced and the pool needed to be put in the backyard or turned around. He was pleased the applicant had moved the building to the south Commissioner Clark was pleased the applicant and architect had worked with the neighbors to reduce the size of the residence and address their concerns He also noted that the open space of the proposed project was 78% of the lot. He also felt that, regardless of the misunderstandings of the direction of the Planning Commission at the previous hearing, he felt that the size of the proposed residence was acceptable Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that in reading the minutes of the November 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, it distinctly directs the applicants to reduce the size of the structure to 5,500 square feet or less He felt the proposed Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1999 Page 6 structure was too large for the neighborhood and the General Plan specifically addressed the need for neighborhood compatibility Being on the uphill side of the street only magnified the problem Commissioner Slayden commented that he did not have a problem with the original plan brought before the Planning Commission, but felt the modifications incorporated into the current proposal were acceptable He did not feel moving the pool was necessary, as it was a key point to the architecture of the house He felt that taking into account the size of the lot and the size of the houses in the adjacent tract, that the proposed residence was not too large Commissioner Paris stated he did not like the "U" shape design as it accentuates the mass of the building He felt the mass of the structure was not needed, as there was a tremendous amount of space utilized in large hallways and stairways He did not like the amount of concrete and hardscape He also felt the pool should be moved to the back of the property Finally, he stated he was uncomfortable with the size of the house relative to the houses around it. Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff to clarify if the five-foot shift of the building to the east was reflected on the current plans Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that he had not been aware of the agreement between the applicant and Mr Pham regarding the relocation of the building to the east. Therefore it was not currently reflected on the plans Vice Chairman Lyon stated that if the additional 5 foot front setback was agreeable to everyone, he was happy with it. Regarding the privacy issue, he felt that any home built on this lot would have a very ready view of the neighbor's backyard. He did not feel it was unreasonable to allow large windows in the bedrooms, as the primary view was to the south He did not feel making windows opaque in the direction of a primary view was acceptable He agreed with Commissioner Vannorsdall that the minutes of November 10, 1998 did reflect the structure was to be reduced to 5,500 square feet, and did not recall any conversation agreeing to the reduction of the residence by only 1,000 square feet. However, most of the proposed house would be built toward the rear of the lot. In his opinion the proposed house does not look massive from the front of the property He felt that the size of the house could be reduced, however he did not think it was necessary Finally, he did not feel the location of the pool was necessarily any business of the Planning Commission Chairman Cartwright agreed with much of what Vice Chairman Lyon had said He also acknowledged the architect and owner's work with the neighbors in adjusting the setback to help relieve some of their concerns He did not find the mass of the house to be objectionable and was happy to see the reduction in the square footage He did not see an issue with neighborhood compatibility, as there are other houses in the area larger than 5,500 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Slayden moved to accept the staff recommendations as presented, thereby adopting PC Resolution No. 99-06 approving the project subject to conditions of approval, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. Commissioner Clark asked if the motion took into account the additional five foot move of the residence to the east of the property Commissioner Slayden amended his motion to include moving the structure an additional five feet to the east of the property, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. Based on the moved front setback, Assistant Planner Schonborn recommended amendment Condition No. 4 in Exhibit A to read, "the maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 17 feet in height or a ridge elevation of 137 feet, as measured from benchmark elevation of 120 feet, which is the highest point of existing pre -construction grade to be covered by the structure The maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 26 feet as measured from the point of the lowest foundation at finished grade to the heighest ridgeline of the structure The lowest finished grade is located at a benchmark elevation of 111 feet located at the southwest corner of the structure at the garage The 120 foot elevation is measured from the northeast corner of the residential structure The benchmark elevation is based on a 102.17 feet at the northwest corner of the property at the front property line Ridgeline certification is required " Chairman Cartwright suggested that, if there were some minor modifications needed because of mathematical error made tonight, that these modifications could be made by staff without having to come back to the Planning Commission. Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that pursuant to re -proposed conditions, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement would be authorized to make minor modifications when needed. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Tomaro if moving the residence five feet to the east was agreeable to the owners Mr Tomaro answered that that was acceptable Commissioner Clark asked Mr Tomaro to explain once again why the swimming pool was designed to be where it was, and not in the back of the property. Mr. Tomaro responded that the backyard area was elevated from the rest of the house He did not want to do a mayor amount of grading in the back to accommodate the pool Also, located in the area shown, it is level with the family area and would be a more useable and desirable area for the pool Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1999 Page 8 Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the existing trees along the sidewalk in the front of the property He wondered if they would be removed for this house to be built He felt the trees along the street enhanced the area and helped cut down the massiveness of the residence He suggested conditioning the approval in such a way that the trees would not be removed, with the exception of the tree in front of the proposed driveway Director/Secretary Rous commented that the Public Works Department was responsible for maintaining City trees and they remove trees if the trees are causing damage to the sidewalks, streets, or any other issue to public safety Therefore, the Public Works Department may have to remove these trees at some point, which would be in conflict with this condition Also, the City has a City Tree Review Process, where trees blocking someone's view could be removed That may also cause a conflict He suggested that if this condition of approval were added, that these two exceptions be included Commissioner Slayden commented that he was not in favor of changing his motion to include this condition Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if they were aware of any necessity or desire by the owner to remove the trees. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated it was necessary to remove the tree in the driveway area, but was not aware of their plans for the other trees. Commissioner Slayden repeated his motion to accept Staff's recommendation to adopt PC Resolution No. 99-06 approving Height Variation No. 866 and Grading Permit No. 2053 with the amendment of moving the structure five feet to the east subject to amended conditions of approval. The motion passed, (4-3) with Commissioners Alberio, Paris, and Vannorsdall dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 30 P.M. the Commission took a recess until 8 40 P.M at which time the meeting was reconvened 3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 25271 and Environmental Assessment No. 703: Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend Company, northwest corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road. (KF) Chairman Cartwright began by asking staff why continuance was recommended for this item Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1999 Page 9 Associate Planner Fox answered that the Planning Commission had, at a past meeting, given staff a list of questions regarding the application Mr Fox commented that in the process of researching and answering these questions, several additional issues arose Staff was still in the process of following up on these issues Further, the applicant had recently submitted a revised map which staff has not had the opportunity to review in time to present to the Commission this evening Commissioner Albeno did not feel there was any need to continue the item to another meeting He felt that all the Commission was being asked to do was approve a subdivision for conveyance purposes only and since he felt the requirement of the Subdivision Map Act were met there should be no further continuance Chairman Cartwright felt that staff had concerns with the proposed map and the consistency with the General Plan Commissioner Slayden moved to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1999, seconded by Chairman Cartwright. The motion passed, (5.2) with Commissioners Alberio and Vannorsdall dissenting. Commissioner Cartwright opened the public hearing. Mike Walker, Palos Verdes Landholding Company, stated he was available to the Commission if they had any questions He also stated that he was not clear what issues staff had. Director/Secretary Rojas responded by stating that one of the issues had to do with the map requirements in the city code and whether this map met those requirements. The second issue dealt with the Subdivision Map Act and how a map for conveyance purposes differs from a standard lot split. The third issue staff was trying to resolve was the relationship to the General Plan Amendment request by Colony Holdings Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Paris wondered if continuing the item to the meeting of March 9 would give the staff enough time to research their questions, and wondered if it might be better to continue the item to the March 23 meeting Director/Secretary Rojas felt that staff could deal with the issues that needed to be addressed by the March 9 meeting Planning Commission Minutes February 23,1999 Page 10 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Director/Secretary Rous pointed out that the meeting of March 23, 1999 would likely be cancelled due to the Planner's Institute Conference, and the Commission concurred COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3138 Barkentine Road distributed a copy of an article entitled "Home Buyers Unaware of Slide Studies" to the Commission. She discussed her objections to the Long Point project. ADJOURNMENT At 9 08 P M Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, March 9, 1999 at 7 00 P M in the Community Room at Hesse park. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright, (7-0) W:1PClmin utes119990223.doc Planning Commission Minutes February 23,1999 Page 11