Loading...
PC MINS 20000328APPROVED 04/ 1/00 F CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p rn by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Clark led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present. Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon, and Chairman Cartwright Absent None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas updated the Commission on the access to public trails at Oceanfront Estates, the status of the Golden Shopping Cove Center, and the status of Ocean Trails. Commissioner Clark discussed the neighborhood compatibility guidelines that were presented at the Planners Institute Conference in Monterey The Commission requested an item for a future agenda to discuss the City's Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 14, 2000 Vice Chairman Lyon noted two typographical errors on page 6 of the minutes Chairman Cartwright noted a typographical error on page 4 of the minutes Commissioner Paris moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion passed, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Clark abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Code Amendment No. 47 — Lead -In or directional signs in the public right- of-way: City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report explaining that the applicant had requested an indefinite continuance on the item Therefore staff recommended tabling until the applicant wishes to proceed. At that time the item will then be renoticed Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that if this item does come back to the Planning Commission he would like a legal opinion from the City Attorney explaining why real estate signs cannot be considered separately from garage sale or special event signs. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that although the City Attorney has already prepared a written opinion he would discuss this request with the City Attorney if the item does return to the Planning Commission Chairman Cartwright discussed the many real estate signs he had observed in the City that were not the required brown and gold color, and that several intersections he noted that had many directional signs pointing in the same direction Commissioner Clark moved to table Code Amendment No. 47 to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Paris. Approved, (7-0). 3. Code Amendment No. 48 — Prohibiting violators of the Municipal Code from filing or processing a View Restoration, View Preservation, or City Tree Permit application: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Director/Secretary Rous explained that this code amendment had been conceptually approved by the Planning Commission at their last meeting, however there had been direction for staff to check with the City Attorney to see if there was a way to consolidate the text's format The City Attorney felt that the code amendment should remain in the present format to distinguish between the different types of applications, therefore no changes to the language were made. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission formally forward this code amendment to the City Council for adoption. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Alberio moved to forward the recommendation of the code amendment to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation No. 897 and Grading Permit No. 2170: Michael Todd (applicant) 6454 Le Blanc Place. Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained that the neighborhood is comprised of a mixture of single story, two-story, and split-level homes. To reduce concerns raised by neighbors and staff, the applicant agreed to reduce the proposed finished pad elevation by an additional 2 feet, resulting in a 23 -foot high structure as measured from the existing grade and an overall structure height of 26 feet. He noted that all the necessary findings for a height variation application have been made by staff and staff has determined that the proposed residence will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel Staff also determined that the proposal meets the necessary lot coverage and setback requirements. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, staff believed that the proposed residence was similar to the mix of two-story, one-story, and split-level residences in the neighborhood. Staff also determined that the immediate neighborhood does not have a governing ridge height and the neighborhood is developed with structures that vary in pad elevations and ridge heights, thereby creating a mix of structure heights in the neighborhood Further, Staff determined that the proposal does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy to the abutting residences or to the residences below on Matisse Drive. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Height Variation and Grading Permit, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the current flags on the silhouette were higher than they should be Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the applicants hired an engineer who determined that the silhouette was actually higher than it should be. Commissioner Paris noted to the right of the property there a buckling in the soil and asked staff if it was a concern. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that it was of minor nature, and that the site had already undergone geology review Commissioner Paris asked if there were any non -protected views that would be blocked as a result of the height variation. Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that there could be some non -protected views blocked from the second story. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Paris asked what the lot coverage was in terms of the pad area only, excluding the slopes Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that he did not know what the percentage of lot coverage would be in calculating the pad area only, but felt the proposed structure was not disproportionate to the surrounding homes. Commissioner Paris asked for clarification of point 3 on page 10 of the staff report, regarding setbacks. Assistant Planner Schonborn explained that the Development Code requires a minimum 20 -foot frontyard setback. However, the Height Variation Guidelines expands on this and requires that for portions of structure higher than 16 -feet and less than 25 -feet from the front property line the application be forwarded to the Planning Commission This proposal is setback from the front property line by 28'/2 feet, however the criteria to which the project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission was that it is a new two-story residence. Commissioner Paris asked about the fill that was placed on the property. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that staff had researched the issue and determined that there is an approximate 1 -foot discrepancy between the current topographical survey and the one that was forwarded to staff from the County Commissioner Paris moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Michael Todd (applicant) 7007 Starstone Drive stated that he had bought the lot because he immediately saw the promise and unique appeai of t.le lot He was attracted to the neighborhood, the quiet cul-de-sac, and was excited about creating a home that was uniquely theirs. Before buying the lot he met with the Planning Department staff to understand the process, read the CC&R's to determine that the lot would permit a two-story home, conducted a market survey and a valuation study to determine if the project would be fiscally sound and viable, retained a surveyor and geologist, and retained an architect The original design was consistent with the Monaco CC&R's with the exception of the external fireplaces, thus extending into the sideyard setbacks. The home was redesigned to internalize the fireplaces and in January he was notified that the plans were in full compliance with Monaco CC&R's He was later made aware of issues of concern from the neighbors, which he has worked with staff to address Two key changes were made as a result 1 }exporting dirt to lower the house on the lot and 2)the southeast elevation was redesigned to be more compatible and have better street appeal relative to the rest of the neighborhood In summary, Mr. Todd felt that he has approached this project responsibly, has been sensitive to issues raised by the neighbors, and worked cooperatively with staff to assure that the design is compatible with the neighborhood The finished height of the home is lower than five other homes on the street, it does not impact the privacy of Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 4 surrounding properties, it meets or exceeds all development standards required by the City, and does not block any protected views For these reasons, Mr Todd requested Planning Commission approval of their request Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Todd about the height of the silhouette. Mr Todd stated that he hired a surveyor who determined that the silhouette and flags are currently 1 4 feet too high Dan Withee, (Withee Malcom Architects) 1983 W 190th Street Torrance discussed how he came up with the design of the home which meets the needs of the Todd family and is compatible with the neighborhood. He explained that the hip roof style proposed for this house creates the least impact in the neighborhood. The roof that is closest to the edge of the pad is two feet lower than the roof Also, the living room wall has been stepped back 2 Y2 feet, which allows the one-story roof to come through. Finally, to protect the neighbor's privacy on Matisse Drive he proposed to plant a hedgerow at the top of the slope, right below the pad. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the drainage of the property Mr Withee explained that the current proposal has the runoff from the front of the house going out to the street and the rest will be taken into a drainage system. Commissioner Paris asked if any consideration had been given to reducing the size and mass of the proposal, specifically the height of the structure Mr Withee answered that they had lowered the pad elevation, stepped back the south side facade wall 2 Y2 feet to create a one-story roof across the side of the house, and IcNered the pitch of the roof. However, he was not .villing to make the actual size of the house smaller Commissioner Albeno asked about landscaping in the front of the house to help subdue and minimize the mass of the house. Mr. Withee replied that the owners would hire a landscape architect that will bring in trees and landscaping in the front Tom Alley 6304 Sattes Drive stated that he has walked the site and looked at the plans and felt that this proposal was an asset to the neighborhood and the city and strongly recommended the Planning Commission approve the project. Eric Randall 6528 Madeline Cove Drive stated that he had represented the Todds in the purchase of the property He explained how the Todds had met with the Planning staff and read the CC&R's for the neighborhood. He also helped the Todds with an open house to inform the neighbors of the proposal and view the plans Because the Todd Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 5 0 • family had followed all of the rules, he urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposal Paul Scala 6405 LeBlanc Place stated that he was very much in favor of the Todd's proposal for the lot. He further stated that he respected the HOA when they uphold the deed restrictions, which the Todds have met He felt that most of the people who object to this proposal, which meets the deed restrictions, are themselves in violation of the deed restrictions He also commented that he could explain why there is so much loose fill on the Todd's property. He recalled a neighbor building his home and later his swimming pool and depositing the dirt on the vacant lot that the Todds later purchased Sharon Guthrie 5432 LeBlanc Place complimented Mr Todd for the sensitivity and efforts he has made to satisfy the neighbor's concerns and stated that she was very happy to have a beautiful home built on the empty lot Dee Beaumont 30143 Matisse Drive explained that her residence was directly below the proposed residence and felt she would loose some privacy at the front of her house. She questioned page 8 of the staff report regarding the average lot and structure size. She asked why a lot that was smaller than the average lot in the area would be allowed to have a house that was larger than the average house in the area She felt that most people who had concerns over the project were concerned over the height of the residence and the lot coverage She felt that a single story residence should have been given more consideration which she felt would be more compatible with the neighborhood She also mentioned that she was the president of the Monaco Homeowners Association Chairman Cartwright asked if she was speaking on behalf of the Homeowners Association or if the comments were her concerns Ms Beaumont replied that the comments were her concerns being a resident on Matisse Drive The concerns of the Homeowners Association were that of lot coverage and height Chairman Cartwright asked if the house was in compliance with the CC&R's. Ms Beaumont answered that the house was in compliance with the CC&R's. Commissioner Clark asked Ms Beaumont what she would consider an acceptable size for this new house. Ms Beaumont responded that on page 8 of the staff report it stated that the average house size in the area was 4,200 square feet She would like to see a house a little closer to that size Bob Petrauschke 6406 LeBlanc Place also had a concern with the size of the house in relationship to the size of the pad it was to be built on He felt it was out of proportion to Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 6 the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. He encouraged the Commission to go out to the neighborhood, walk around, and get a feel for the houses there to assure themselves that what they have heard tonight meets all of their ideals before they make a final decision. Chairman Cartwright responded that it was a practice of the Planning Commissioners to visit the site at some time before the hearing to acquaint themselves with the project and neighborhood. Dennis Drag 6415 LeBlanc Place complimented the Todds on the early neighborhood consultation process and their availability. He questioned the preparation of the table in the staff report showing house square footage relative to lot size. He noted that of the fourteen lots on LeBlanc Place, seven are flat lots He felt it would be more appropriate to compare the house square footage relative to the buildable area. His other concern was that most of the homes on LeBlanc Place had the mass of the home substantially farther back from the street than this proposal Commissioner Paris agreed that this type of table did not present the information as clearly as it could be presented He felt that lot coverage on the pad was another relevant statistic he would like to see included in staff reports Brian Campbell 6477 Chartres Drive stated that he was the current Vice President of the Homeowners Association and head of the Architectural Committee He too complimented the Todds in their efforts to work with the neighbors. His main issue was with the height of the lot itself He was not opposed to the overall height of the house, he was opposed to the height of the house as compared to the surrounding homes Regardless of the outcome of the project he wanted the Todds to know that they will be welcome in the neighborhood with whatever house is eventually approved by the Planning Commission. Michael Todd (in rebuttal) stated that the staff report addresses the issue of the fill on the lot very specifically in stating that the topographical survey of the lot, when compared with the data that has been conveyed from the County, shows that there is less than one foot variation between what is on the lot now and what was there before. He explained that what that means is they are lowering the lot two feet from whatever it's highest point previously and well below whatever natural grade was at the time the tract map was recorded He explained that he did not buy a large, flat, useable lot. Instead, he bought a view The lot is 16,000 square feet, the total lot coverage is 33%, and the city standard is 40%. Dan Withee stated that he had done a quick calculation and determined that the flat pad area is approximately 60% of the lot and of that 60% the house itself covers just under 40% of that flat pad. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 7 Vice Chairman Lyon felt that Mr. Todd has been very responsible in his approach to this project, has followed all of the rules of the City, abided by the CC&R's, and accommodated many of the neighbors concerns Unfortunately, when a vacant lot exists for many years people get used to it and feel it is something they have a right to look over without obstruction. However, the last to build in a development has the same rights as the first who builds in an area. He felt this was a good plan and would recommend approval Commissioner Albeno agreed with the Vice Chairman. Commissioner Paris stated that he felt this was another example of somebody requesting a variance to defeat the inherent restriction on the land itself. If a property has a small building pad that should dictate the size of the home He felt this proposed structure was set at a maximum intrusion to the neighborhood He did not think any of the neighbors concerns had been addressed He felt this was a prime property for a compromise and no efforts were made to make the neighbors happy He did not think this house was compatible with the neighborhood but could be with some adjustments Commissioner Slayden stated that this project was in conformance with the City Development Code and the Homeowners Association CC&R's and had no objections to the project. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that what was bothering many of the neighbors was that this proposal was higher than the houses on either side of it. He did not think that this particular lot should be a victim of what other people have done. He was sympathetic to the neighbors concerns but did not think Mr Todd should be penalized for what his neighbors had done He felt this was a good project and would recommend approval Commissioner Clark felt the main issue was if the house was too large for the lot He did not think it was, as it met the City requirements and CC&R's of the HOA He felt this project would add value to the neighborhood and supported the project Chairman Cartwright also sympathized and appreciated the concerns of the neighbors who only want their neighborhood to be consistent, compatible, and protect their property values. However he agreed that the proposal was consistent with the CC&R's, consistent with the Development Code, and consistent with the height of other houses on the street Vice Chairman Lyon moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-10 thereby approving Height Variation No. 897 and Grading Permit No. 2170 as presented. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Paris dissenting, Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 8 Chairman Cartwright thanked the staff and Commissioners for their support during his fifteen month tenure as the Chairman for the Planning Commission Commissioner Clark complimented Chairman Cartwright for the good job he has done as the Chairman and the rest of the Commission for their good work, as well as the high quality of work done by the planning staff. The other Commissioners thanked the staff and fellow Commissioners as well. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. to April 11, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 9