Loading...
PC MINS 20150414 Approved May 12, 2015 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 14, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:05 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the upcoming April 21st meeting the City Council will consider the Planning Commission's decision on the appeal of a Fence/Wall Permit on Sprucegrove Drive. Director Rojas also reported that the City Council will hear the Planning Commission's recommendations on the proposed zone change / lot split at 5656 Crest Road. Director Rojas distributed ten letters of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2, two letters for agenda item No. 4, and one letter for agenda item No. 5. Commissioner Emenhiser reported that he, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson met with the new City Manager. Chairman Nelson reported on his attendance at the last Traffic Safety Committee meeting as well as his meeting with the new City Manager. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): April Sandell spoke about the Western Avenue Vision Plan and how she felt it should be included in the discussion of the General Plan Update, which is agenda item No. 5. Director Rojas noted that the Western Avenue Vision Plan is on the Commission's next agenda, as it has no relation to the General Plan update item. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of March 10, 2015 Minutes Commissioner Cruikshank moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Appeal of Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00526): 29073 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the history of the project with the Planning Commission and an overview of the proposed revised project. She explained that staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission as to whether the applicant has addressed the Commissions concerns, and if so, staff is recommending the Commission approve the project and direct staff to return at the next meeting with a Resolution reflecting the decision. Raul Podesta (architect) explained that after the January meeting he had no choice but to listen to the comments from the Commission. He explained that the entire house has been redesigned, the roof has been completely redesigned, articulation has been added, and the overall height has been lowered. He noted that with the original design the house would have been the largest in the neighborhood, however with this revised design the house would now be the second largest in the neighborhood. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Podesta the plate heights for the first and second floors. Mr. Podesta answered that the ceiling height is nine feet on both floors. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Podesta to explain the proposed landscaping. Mr. Podesta noted that a landscape architect will design the landscaping to be drought tolerant. Eva Cicoria stated she has looked at the revised plans and the silhouette, both from her home to the north and from the drive that goes up to the Chen property. She felt the plans show a nice effort to articulate both the front and rear of the home, however she felt there is still an enormous wall that she looks at from her property. She noted this was ap roblem in the first rendition of the home and hasn't changed. She also noted Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2015 Page 2 that there has been quite a bit of discussion in regards to lot constraints on this property. She pointed out that there are lot constraints on her property as well, noting that because of the view ordinance she cannot plant trees that will screen or even soften the view of that wall. She also explained that while the square footage of the structure has been reduced, this reduction has not affected the overall bulk and mass of the structure. In addition, she did not feel the design was compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Cicoria what she felt would be best for this property. Ms. Cicoria explained that she felt one of the biggest problems with the house and neighborhood compatibility is the way the house will sprawl across the entire lot. She also noted the house rises quite high and therefore is very bulky and massive. She felt the house should be smaller and there should be mitigation for that very large wall. Vice Chairman Tomblin felt Ms. Cicoria's biggest concern was the bulk of the proposed residence, noting the bulk is greatly increased on the side facing her. He asked if that elevation were to be reduced and the bulk were cut back so that Ms. Cicoria did not see as much of the wall, if that would help. He asked Ms. Cicoria if there were any other issues, based on the proposed elevation that would be of concern. Ms. Cicoria noted the screening that would soften the look of the home was an issue. She hoped that landscaping would be included that would soften the structure, however she had concerns because of the slope and the view ordinance. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted the numerous windows facing her and asked if some of the windows were eliminated or reduced if that would help her concerns. Ms. Cicoria explained that she had concerns with privacy, but was told that there was no right to bring up privacy issues because of the way the code is written. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that staff wants the residents to voice their concerns, however in making the findings for this particular application, because the structure falls within the by-right height limitations of a hillside lot, there is no finding for privacy. Nonetheless, if the Commission finds the windows are a design concern they can ask the applicant to address it. Ken Swenson explained the neighborhood compatibility concern is based on the massing and the open space and the feeling that creates. He stated this is still, with the garage, a 6,000 square foot envelope and that the approximate 1,000 square foot reduction came out of the center of the building. He was happy that the applicant did something to try to address the size of the structure, but felt they should have done was something to reduce the visual size of the structure. He felt that today there is still the problem that the Commission was presented with at the last meeting, that being a large structure with a lot of bulk and mass. He stated that the Commission had asked the Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2015 Page 3 applicant to design a smaller home, and while the actual square footage may be smaller on paper, he did not feel the size of the footprint or the bulk and mass has changed. He did not think the applicant accomplished what the Commission was asking them to do. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Swenson if he had any idea of the relative elevation between the proposed new structure and his house. Mr. Swenson thought the neighboring elevation was a bit higher than his. Commissioner Leon referred to the second floor, and asked staff to clarify the differences between the first design and this design. Associate Planner Mikhail showed drawings of the proposed floor plan of the original submittal and the redesigned floor plan, and pointed out that the side elevation, in the entirety of the home, is not different. However, the architect took a section of the home's façade and pushed it in to add articulation. Tom Hall stated he was representing the five homeowners that are in the neighborhood. He emphasized the neighbors have no objection to the applicant building a home in the neighborhood. He explained the five homes range in size from 1,500 square feet to 2,745 square feet in size. They are all ranch style homes, and the residents have all worked hard over the years to develop and maintain these ranch style homes. He requested the Commission uphold its original decision, and this time deny without prejudice the architectural drawings and the grading permit for this home. He did not think the architectural style, bulk, and mass of the proposed home complied or conformed with five houses in the neighborhood. He did not believe that if one superimposed the new design over the old design, that there would be much of a change in the footprint itself. He requested that the applicant reduce and redesign the home so that it fit in with the five currently in the neighborhood. He hoped the Commission would take the desires, needs, and requests of many over the desires, needs, and requests of one. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if there is a homeowners association in the community. Mr. Hall answered there is not. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Hall if the footprint were reduced to be more compatible, in his opinion, with the neighborhood would square footage then be an issue. Mr. Hall felt that reducing the footprint would obviously help, but reiterated that the five homes are between 1,500 and 2,745 square feet in size. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Hall when his home was built. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2015 Page 4 Mr. Hall stated his home was built in 1962. Chairman Nelson felt that the homeowners were asking the Commission, in 2015, to approve 1960 style homes. Mr. Hall disagreed, stating the residents were asking that the architectural style of the proposed home be more compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. Greg Allen stated his home is in the immediate neighborhood, and his main issue was the size of the home. He explained that all the homes share a common driveway which would make this large home stand out even more. He stated that the applicant came to his home and discussed the changes, and he signed the paper stating that he had discussed the design with the architect. He noted that, while he signed the paper, he was in no way in favor of the project. Director Rojas clarified that Height Variation applications require that a certain percentage of owners within a 500 foot radius sign a sheet, the purpose of which is to say they have seen the proposed plans. The purpose is not to determine if they are in favor or opposition of the proposed project. He noted that the applicant voluntarily attempted to get neighbors to sign a sheet to acknowledge the plans, although said signatures are not required for this particular application. Donna Ehlers noted that there are new homes being built on Palos Verdes Drive North that are country-style homes, and therefore she did not think this style was old- fashioned. She noted these homes are being sold for $2.5 million. She felt the proposed modern style home is completely incompatible and out of place with the country style homes in the neighborhood. She was concerned that the applicant was being upfront with the City on the design change and wondered if once the house was approved the interior design and square footage may change. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they were satisfied with the 2,000 square feet that was removed from the current plan. Associate Planner Mikhail stated the applicant removed 2,000 square feet of habitable area from the plan. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Ehlers if the footprint were to be reduced to a more compatible size, would she object to a house that is large in square footage than the others in the neighborhood. Ms. Ehlers answered that her biggest concern is with the footprint. Commissioner James asked Ms. Ehlers if she was more concerned with the size/footprint of the house, or was her bigger concern the actual design of the home not being the country/ranch style home. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2015 Page 5 Ms. Ehlers answered that, while the new home on Palos Verdes Drive North is large in size, one can't tell how large the house is because it goes back on the lot. This proposed house is big in size, and the way the footprint is configured it seems horizontal and takes up a large space at the front of the lot. But asked which was more important to her, size or compatibility, she would chose compatibility in the design. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff if the applicant will be required to widen the driveway for fire department access. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant has made a preliminary visit to the Fire Department, but she was not aware of the Fire Department's requirements of the applicant. Raul Podesta (in rebuttal) stated the driveway to the house is an easement and should be sufficient for access, however he will do whatever the Fire Department requires. In regards to the footprint of the house, he noted that there is a page in the plans showing the original footprint and the proposed footprint. He stated that there is no wall along the rear elevation that exceeds 26 to 28 feet in length without articulation. Commissioner Leon stated it was his understanding that the second floor has been reduced by 1,300 square feet, and asked Mr. Podesta if that was correct. Mr. Podesta answered that the overall footprint of the building has been reduced by almost 1,300 square feet. He stated that approximately 300 square feet have been reduced in the garage, 700 from the second floor, and the rest from the floor below. He noted there is crawl space, but it ranges from about 2 feet in height to about 5 feet in height, and this could not be converted to habitable space. He also noted on the elevations how the rear and side walls have been reduced and articulated. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Podesta how much he lowered the overall height of the house. Mr. Podesta answered that the ridge was lowered 2 feet - 11 '/2 inches, and the finished floor has been lowered 15 inches. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Podesta if he thought the appearance of mass of the house would be reduced any if he continued a narrow balcony around the master bedroom, noting that is the tall two-story area. Mr. Podesta stated he would like to put a balcony in front of the bedroom, however the owner does not want one. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Podesta if there is another way he can articulate that façade. Mr. Podesta thought there would be something he could do to help the articulation. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2015 Page 6 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Podesta why he couldn't go down on the lot and put the additional square footage below grade. Mr. Podesta explained that it may be possible to put some square footage below existing grade, however it will cause him to create retaining walls on the property. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner referred to page 44 of the original staff report and the discussion of architectural styles. He noted staffs statement that the proposed material for the new house will be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. He asked staff if this was still their opinion. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the guidelines for neighborhood compatibility direct staff to look at the twenty closest homes. She acknowledged that this particular neighborhood is a bit different than most, and that this neighborhood hasn't seen any real change in over fifty years. She stated that, generally speaking, in the twenty closest homes there is a mixture of wood siding, stucco, stone, etc. She noted that while there may be five homes that share a common driveway and make up a neighborhood, staff does have to consider the twenty closest homes when doing the analysis, and this is not uncommon along Palos Verdes Drive East. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff what the height reduction of the home is as shown on the most recent plans. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that the height reduction of the proposed residence from the January 27th meeting to today is one-foot eleven-inches, as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Emenhiser stated this is a decision that is difficult for the Commission, in that there is a lot with many limitations to it and a neighborhood that is most likely on the verge of changing and may not want to change. He felt the neighborhood compatibility issue is always subjective. He noted the Commission asked the applicant to try to reduce the size of the house, and he did so by eliminating square footage and lowering the height. However, neighbors on three sides of the property are still objecting to the bulk and mass of the house. He also noted that there was nobody in the neighborhood speaking in favor of the plan. He felt this was important, as he felt the neighborhood always has a vote. He stated that if the Commission decides to direct the applicant to do additional redesign, the neighborhood should try to meet them half way such that the neighborhood realizes something is going to be built on this vacant lot. Commissioner Leon felt the architect has softened the façade on the north side dramatically, as compared to what it was. However, he felt the applicant can do more in the reduction of the square footage. He noted they kept the overall apparent mass of the house the same and reduced the square footage largely in the areas nobody sees. He felt that the Commission should do one of two things; either deny the project without Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2015 Page 7 prejudice, or continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to further modify the project. Commissioner Gerstner stated that this house is currently at 4,999 square feet, and in the twenty closest homes there are several homes over 4,000 square feet. While the homes in the immediate neighborhood may be smaller, in comparing this home with the twenty closest homes he did not feel the size was out of character. Commissioner Leon agreed, however he would rather support a larger home on this lot in a smaller footprint. Vice Chairman Tomblin felt that this reduced square footage is compatible with the twenty closest homes. However, he had concerns with the footprint of the home and felt that there were alternate designs that could incorporate the square footage within a smaller footprint that wouldn't impact the immediate neighbors quite so much. He was inclined to support a motion to deny the project without prejudice. Commissioner James explained that when this project first came before the Commission he did not think this house was going to work on this site at all, as it was just too large. However, after seeing what the architect has been able to do he has changed his mind. He noted that what is currently before the Commission may not be satisfactory at this point, however continued effort by the applicant to modify the design may be beneficial. He therefore would support a motion to continue the public hearing. Commissioner Cruikshank agreed that the architect and applicant have made many changes to the structure. He felt the reason the house looks so large may be that the applicant is trying to maintain a view from the living room area on the top. He felt the house could be set more into the hill to soften the look of the house. He stated he would be more inclined to support a motion to continue the public hearing rather than to deny the project. Chairman Nelson reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Podesta to return to the podium for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Podesta if he preferred to take another look at the design to consider changes that would improve the neighborhood compatibility, which would include reducing the mass, or would he prefer to have the Commission deny the project which would allow the applicant to appeal the project to the City Council for a decision. Mr. Podesta stated he would need to discuss this with his client. He felt he could lower the ridge a bit more, as well as the finished floor. He was not sure he could reduce the size of the house too much more because of the desires of his client. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested to Mr. Podesta that he take the option to continue the public hearing to attempt to make some changes. He felt that if the applicant were Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2015 Page 8 to go before the City Council with the neighborhood opposition the Commission has seen, the City Council may not be inclined to approve the project. Director Rojas stated that if the Commission is inclined to continue the public hearing, he suggested continuing it to the meeting on May 12th Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Podesta if May 12th was acceptable to him. Mr. Podesta answered that May 12th would work. He asked for clarification in terms of neighborhood compatibility, as he felt the twenty closest homes were no longer being considered in the neighborhood compatibility and only the five closest homes were being considered. He stated that if a ranch style home is all that the Commission will consider as compatible, then he knows his client would rather present his case to the City Council. Vice Chairman Tomblin felt that to soften the look of this long house on the property, he would eliminate the fourth bedroom which would eliminate twenty-one linear feet. He felt that bedroom could be put down below which would then give the applicant the square footage he wanted but would soften the look of the bulk and mass of the house on the north side. Commissioner Leon moved to continue the public hearing to the May 12, 2015 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (7- 0). Commissioner James felt that item No. 5 could be heard fairly quickly and therefore moved to modify the agenda to hear item No. 5 before item No. 3, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. General Plan Update — Proposed land use change for Eastview single family residential areas Senior Planner Kim presented a brief staff report, explaining that the land use change is being proposed to match the existing zoning designation and how the existing land use designation is inconsistent with the existing zoning designation. With this General Plan update staff is recommending this inconsistency be corrected by changing the land use from R2-4 to R4-6 to match the zoning designation of RS-5. Director Rojas emphasized the point that the zoning was previously changed to RS-5 but the General Plan was not changed at the same time to match the zoning. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2015 Page 9 April Sandell felt the public notice was terribly confusing to a lot of people. She felt the confusion came in that nobody realized the zone change took place five years ago. She felt this was all leading up to the greater possible impact as land uses change, properties get bought, and there is the possibility of joining adjacent lots to create a bigger lot. She felt this change was going down the avenue where people can collectively purchase properties and build several units on the larger property. She also questioned if proper notice was given to the Eastview residents five years ago when this zone change occurred. Director Rojas explained that the proposed change will keep all of the residential properties as Single Family Residential. He clarified that the zoning term RS-5 is not that one can build five units on a lot, but rather there will be five single family residences within an acre. Commissioner Gerstner added that the lots in the area are very small and many of them are smaller than an RS-4 zoning would allow, and with that there was a large amount of non-conforming structures. Therefore, the RS-5 was created to be more consistent. He stated the error that was made five years ago was that the General Plan wasn't changed at the same time. Jane Gualeni stated she was extremely concerned with staffs recommendation. She stated she was not clear about the area being discussed, and there is a lot of misconception. She was very concerned about the Ponte Vista development and the idea that there may be another housing development built just north of Ponte Vista. She was concerned with the traffic density on Western Avenue and the challenges that traffic creates. She asked the Commission postpone their decision to give the neighbors a chance to hear about and understand this proposed change. Lisa Scotto stated that she received the notice for this meeting, and shortly after received the notice for the meeting to discuss the Western Avenue Vision Plan. She felt this vote was being slipped in to change the zoning before the residents are told about and discuss the Western Avenue Vision Plan. She too was concerned with the traffic on Western Avenue and the proposed development at Ponte Vista. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if this proposal and Western Avenue have any connection. Director Rojas explained that there is a Western Avenue Plan that talks about design standards, and this General Plan clean-up item has absolutely nothing to do with the Western Avenue Plan. He stated this item is not an attempt to add more density, allow multi-family, or allow more units, but rather is only to change the designation on one plan to match the designation on another plan so that there is consistency. He stated that it changes nothing in regards to what residents can do on their property and gives them no new rights. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2015 Page 10 Commissioner Gerstner felt that Ms. Scotto was right to be concerned about what the Los Angeles is allowing to be done at Ponte Vista and the surrounding properties. He noted that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes this and actually has its own and some of the same problems with these developments, and is actively working to mitigate these concerns. He gave a brief history of why this zone change took place five years ago and how it recognizes the uniqueness of the Eastview area and the existing conditions of the homes. He stressed that this General Plan update is merely a housekeeping issue and will not affect the properties in a positive or a negative way. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved staff's recommendation to approve the proposed land use change to the General Plan, seconded by Commissioner James. The motion was approved, (7-0). 3. Outdoor lighting (Case No. ZON2014-00320) Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to April 28, 2015 as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without objection. 4. Variance, Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014- 003310: 28191 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the proposed project, and the need for the Variance. She stated staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Jerry Rodin (architect) stated he was available for questions. There being no questions from the Commission, Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner James stated he was able to approve all aspects of the project except one, the Variance request for the front gate. He questioned the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to approve this gate. Chairman Nelson reopened the public hearing. Jerry Rodin explained this is a flag lot, the access is very deep, and the property is elevated from the street at least 15 feet. He explained that there are young children on this property and there is a life safety issue involved. In addition, the gate is needed for the security and the protection of the property. Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2015 Page 11 Commissioner James asked Mr. Rodin to clarify the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that would allow him to grant a Variance. He felt that the fact that this is a flag lot is a step in the right direction, and asked for additional clarification. Mr. Rodin stated there is dense brush in the area that makes the property susceptible to robberies and that property is elevated above the street so that a fence is needed to act as a barrier. Commissioner James questioned if six feet rather than 42 inches in height was going to make much of a difference. Chairman Nelson felt the difference may be one of deterrence. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that this is not a flag lot, however the way it is utilized is similar to that of a flag lot. Commissioner Gerstner felt the problem with private roads such as this is they are not policed like a regular road, but the City applies all of the standards of a public way to a private road. Therefore, he felt it was less safe in many ways on a private road. In addition, the six-foot fence will not impact the general public. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The motion was approved, thereby approving PC Resolution 2015-06 (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 6. Entitlements time extension request (Case No. ZON2013-00063): 2902 Vista del Mar Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, stating the applicant is requesting a one- year time extension to secure funding to prepare plans for plan check review. Commissioner Leon moved to approve the one year time extension, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Chairman Nelson stated that he did not feel the applicant was truly looking for funding, as he discovered that yesterday the property was listed for $2.48 million. He questioned if the property owner is going to build on the lot or if the property owner is going to sell the lot, and putting the lot up for sale makes him question the validity of the time extension request. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the entitlement to build runs with the land or with the actual applicant. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2015 Page 12 Director Rojas answered that the entitlement runs with the land. Commissioner James stated he talked to staff about the history of the property and what the substantial hardship may be. He stated he did not see any evidence of a substantial hardship, and the fact that the owner may have to pay an extra fee he did not feel was a substantial hardship. He did not feel there was any basis for the Planning Commission to grant extra time to the applicant. Chairman Nelson agreed with Commissioner James' comments. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there has been any communication with the applicant since the original planning approval, or if staff just receives a letter asking for more time. Senior Planner Kim stated there has been no communication with the owner other than the request for more time. Commissioner Leon asked staff if it costs the City any money to grant the applicant this extension. Director Rojas answered that it does not cost the City any money to grant the extension. The motion to approve the one year extension failed, (3-4) with Commissioners James, Emenhiser, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson dissenting. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if the Code allows for up to a one year extension, and asked if this was a one-time only extension. Senior Planner Kim answered that the extension is a one-time only extension. Director Rojas added there is another provision in the Code that states if something does expire it can be reinstated by staff provided it is within one year of expiration, the plans have not changed, and they pay half the total fee. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to grant a three month extension, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The motion was approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Gerstner and Chairman Nelson dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-agenda for the meeting on April 28, 2015 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2015 Page 13