Loading...
PC MINS 20160809 Approved 8/23/1s4;1.: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Cruikshank at 7:05 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, and Vice Chairman Cruikshank. Absent: Chairman Tomblin was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Associate Planner Silva, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the August 2, 2016 meeting the City Council authorized staff to file a response letter to the civil grand jury countywide report on measures to improve transparency with the city's commissions and committees; approved a service agreement with ESA Inc. to prepare technical studies as part of the General Plan update; and continued, without discussion, the minor modification code amendment initiation request to the August 16th meeting. Director Mihranian noted that late correspondence had been distributed for agenda item No. 3. Commissioner Emenhiser reported that Vice Chairman Cruikshank was featured on various news outlets for his engineered net that was used to catch a skydiver's jump without a parachute. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Noel Weiss distributed a copy of a site plan for Green Hills that was prepared by staff and felt the plan is inaccurate. He noted the reference to ground burials, and said there was no provision in the code or state law that specifically allows for internments on the roof. He discussed the difference between a burial and an internment. Bernadette Sabath stated the CUP for Green Hills is up for review before the Planning Commission in November and her concerns with the loud noise that comes from the cemetery. She felt there should be penalties and consequences imposed upon Green Hills when disturbances occur. Joe DeVenuto discussed the ongoing problems occurring at the Cal Water site with the neighbors. He stated there are still some outstanding dust control mitigation issues and landscaping issues and asked the Planning Commission to receive a status update in order hear the outstanding concerns of the neighbors regarding the operations at the site. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of July 26, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. 2. General Plan Status Update Commissioner Nelson moved to remove the item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Approved without objection. Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, reporting that the City Council had recently approved a service agreement with ESA Consultants to conduct and complete the technical studies for the General Plan. Staff does not anticipate starting any work on the traffic study until school begins, and anticipates bringing the General Plan back to the Planning Commission in spring or early summer 2017. Commissioner Emenhiser discussed his concern that this consultant used a former staff member as a reference, noting that this staff member has left the City under a bit of a cloud, and questioned ESA's choice of reference. Director Mihranian stressed that ESA is a good environmental consulting firm, and is highly qualified. He felt that the City will get a good working product from them. Commissioner Nelson stated he spoke before the City Council regarding this item, noting the traffic study is not coming before the City's Traffic Safety Committee. He stated he has received assurances from the Director that the Traffic Safety Committee will see this traffic study before it comes before the Planning Committee. He discussed the amount of time and money spent on updating the General Plan, which is a plan he felt is Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 2 unenforceable. He stated that this update needs to be completed and no more time spent on the update. Director Mihranian reiterated that the traffic study will go before the Traffic Safety Committee for their review and recommendation. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if the Traffic Safety Committee had any input in regards to the RFP for the consultant. Director Mihranian answered that they did not have input, but the City's Traffic Engineer from Public Works Department did. Commissioner Nelson moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Plan, Subdivision for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658,Variance, Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 and ZON2016-0020): 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, giving a brief overview of the proposed lot split and two new houses. He explained that, as proposed the two proposed lots do not meet the City's 90 foot minimum lot width requirement for the RS-2 Zoning District. He stated that staff could not make the findings to recommend approval of the Variance, as there were no exceptional circumstances applicable to the property, the Variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right, granting the Variance will be detrimental to the public welfare, and the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. He noted, however, that applicant has identified two options for the subdivision that would meet the City's development standards. He discussed the need for the proposed height variation, grading permit, and site plan review. In doing the neighborhood compatibility analysis required with the height variation, staff found the proposed houses were not compatible with the neighboring properties and stated staff was concerned with the overall size, height, bulk and mass. He stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission direct the applicant to redesign the proposed subdivision to comply with the City's minimum lot width requirement and to reduce the square footage, height, and bulk and mass of the two proposed homes, and to continue the item to the September 27th meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser disclosed that he had, a little over two years ago, met with the representatives of this project and advised them to pay great attention to the reaction of the neighborhood and pay particular attention to the advice and counsel of staff. Commissioner Bradley asked if there was a basic or legal right to subdivide a property to the minimum dimensions. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 3 Director Mihranian answered that per Title 16 of the Municipal Code, there are four things that have to be factored in when considering a lot split: the minimum lot width, the minimum lot depth, the minimum lot area, and the contiguous lot area. If those four fundamental standards can be met, and the findings can be met, then a subdivision is feasible. Assistant City Attorney Burrows added the underlying right to subdivide comes from the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission's determination as to whether or not the application meets the requirements of the Code. Commissioner Bradley questioned if the Commission can approve a development where the only access to the lot is through another City, or does there have to be access to the lot from Rancho Palos Verdes. Director Mihranian stated that access to the property does not necessarily have to be through Rancho Palos Verdes. Commissioner Leon asked if the minimum 90 foot width requirement meant that the lot had to be 90 feet wide at some point, or if the entire lot had to be a minimum of 90 feet wide. Director Mihranian explained the measurement is taken from the mid-point of the lot that is most parallel with the front property line. Vice Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Nital Patel (applicant) stated that he and his brother are proposing the two houses, one for his family and one for his brother's family. He stated that to do a lot split there are four criteria and he has met three of the four. In regards to the fourth, they are short six feet combined. He stated there are three option to split the lot, however he felt this is the best option. He noted that the square footage also represents the garage and the basement areas. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Patel why they chose the lot split that does not follow the required 90 foot lot width. Mr. Patel explained that one of the options has one house behind the other, and that front house will block the view from the rear house. The other option has the houses at an angle where they are almost facing each other rather than facing the street. Tim Racisz (architect) stated he also designed Mr. Maupin's home located to the south, which he modeled these two proposed homes after in terms of size and design. He explained that early in the process he identified that the lot width would be an issue, however being only six feet short he did not think it made sense to force a solution on the project that was inferior to what is being proposed. He noted that this proposal gives two Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 4 houses that are side by side facing the street, one house does not block the view from the other house, the length of the driveway is reduced, and the amount of grading is reduced. In regards to the size of the houses, he indicated the owners are willing to work with staff to reduce the size of the houses to make them more compatible. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Racisz how large the house to the south is. Mr. Racisz answered the house is about 5,400 square feet of living space and has an oversized three car garage. Director Mihranian indicated that the home is on the neighborhood compatibility chart in the staff report. The chart states the house is 6,222 square feet. Commissioner Leon noted that currently, as designed, the two houses look pretty much like mirror images of one another, and noted that when viewed from Palos Verdes Drive East they will look more like a single, 15,000 square foot structure. He asked Mr. Racisz how the bulk and mass can be mitigated. Mr. Racisz explained that currently there are silhouettes on the property, and one cannot tell where one silhouette ends and the other begins. When the houses are actually built, while similar, they will have different materials and be different colors. Commissioner Nelson asked what the distance will be between the two houses. Mr. Racisz answered that the distance will be twenty feet between the homes. Doug Maupin stated it is his home to the south, and the living space is 5,300 square feet with 900 square feet of storage. He stated that from his property he has no issue with the proposed project, as there are no privacy or view issues. He felt the owners would be more than willing to work with staff, and felt the solutions are probably less desirable than a nice clean straight line. He stated he supports the current project. Dr. George Wissa explained that it was his understanding that a portion of the lots is greater than 90 feet in width and a portion is less than 90 feet, however it is not 90 feet at the mid-point of the lots. He felt that the proposed project is much more pleasing to the eye than the alternatives, and reminded the Commission that the issue is just six feet or less. Dr. Sam Vazih stated he supports the currently proposed project, and felt that it will only help the community and surrounding property values. Ramin Rabii stated he also fully supports the current proposed project. Mike Patel stated he supports the project, however understood the need for compromise. He hoped that a reasonable compromise could be reached. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 5 Sandhya Walia stated she does not see an issue with the currently proposed project. She felt that both of the proposed properties fit within the range of surrounding properties. She also felt these homes will give potential to the surrounding properties in terms of what can be built in the future. Ritesh Sonea stated he supports the current project and the homes will add tremendous value to the neighborhood. Robert Schachter stated he is an attorney representing the Patels in the legal matters of this issue. He also noted that he is a Commissioner on the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission. Regarding the question as to whether or not a subdivision was a legal right, he stated that it was his understanding that as long as all of the code requirements for a subdivision are met, there is a vested right to do so. He did not think it was a discretionary call at that point. In regards to the 90 foot wide code requirement, he questioned why the requirement to take the measurement at the mid-point was part of the code. He noted the requirement will be met under either of the other two options. He therefore felt it would be appropriate to approve a variance for the current configuration since it is a better project. Commissioner Nelson noted Mr. Schachter's statement that if the applicant meets the code requirements they are entitled to a subdivision. He asked Mr. Schachter if the current project meets code requirements. Mr. Schachter answered that currently the project does not. Dr. Jeanette Derdemez felt the proposed project would be an asset to the community and supported the project. Scott Ramsay (1 Harbor Sight Drive, RHE), displayed a photo of the view he will have from his home if the new houses are built as proposed. He did not feel this project would be compatible with the neighborhood, and noted it will be massively overbuilt for even a single lot. He also noted that these large homes will be built on some of the smallest lots in the City. He pointed out that Mr. Maupin's home to the south is built into a grade and is not nearly as visible from the neighboring lots or the street. He also noted that these proposed houses are dramatically above grade, and having only 20 feet between the homes with a common motor court will make the houses look like one enormous structure. Robert Bennett (16 Deerhill Drive, RHE), stated he submitted a letter with a photo that he superimposed the image of the proposed homes onto to show what happens to the view. He noted that the two homes together, with their basements, is over 16,000 square feet of buildings immediately adjacent to approximate '/2 acre lots with 2,500 to 3,000 square foot homes on them. He felt the homes below will have privacy issues with the tall buildings built behind them. He felt the variance requests are excessive and added that because of the configuration of the property with the slopes in the front and rear forces the building to be built in the center of the lot, and is therefore not a functional full acre lot for construction. Finally, he noted that the Planning Commission in Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 6 has denied projects in the City when they adversely affect homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and he hoped this Planning Commission would give the Rolling Hills Estates residents the same respect. Glenn Komae (3 Harbor Sight Drive RHE) stated his home within a few hundred feet of the proposed project, and he was very concerned with the project. He hoped the Planning Commission would consider the concerns of the Rolling Hills Estates residents, especially in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Justin Chiodo (27601 Palos Verdes Drive East) stated the code requirements are in place for a reason, which he felt was to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. He felt that making an exception in this case may set a precedents for other buildings in the community. He stated this proposal will create two very large structures on two very small lots, and the houses will be much closer to Palos Verdes Drive than other homes in the area. He did not feel the structures were compatible with the neighborhood, and did not feel they would improve the neighborhood. He was concerned with the population density and the quality of living because of it. He stated he was not opposed to someone improving their residence, however that improvement should be done with something that complies with the City's requirements without having to request exceptions. Sharon Yarber referred to Mr. Maupin's home, noting it is a beautiful house but does not fit into the equestrian neighborhood where it is built. She did not think these two homes would fit into the character of the community either. She noted there is proposed one perimeter wall going around both of the properties, along with one entry, one driveway, one shared motor court, and a shared pool. She stated that this is a compound, not two beautiful homes built on two separate lots. In addition, the size of these two homes makes them overwhelming. She felt it was very important to take into consideration the views of the immediate and surrounding properties, whether in Rancho Palos Verdes or Rolling Hills Estates. She noted this is the very first property in Rancho Palos Verdes on Palos Verdes Drive East, and is accessed through Rolling Hills Estates. She reiterated that this property is in an equestrian district and it would be nice to see ranch style homes with more land. Dallas Taft stated he would like to give a viewpoint and opinion of one who does not live in this neighborhood but has driven by the properties for decades. He stated that when Mr. Maupin's home was built, he felt the home looked good and increases the value of the neighborhood. When seeing two more houses proposed that were designed by the same architect his reaction is they will look good and will also increase the value of the neighborhood. He realized that there was an issue with the lot dimension, but being an engineer he also knew that often times a minor compromise yields a much better solution. Robert Schachter (in rebuttal) stated that one of the reasons they are here tonight is try to get some input and guidance they can take back to staff in regards to the 90 foot issue. Commissioner Bradley stated he has some grave concerns about this project. He noted that without the lot split the Commission would be looking at a residence of almost 15,000 square feet on a single lot to replace the existing residence. He stated this would far Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 7 outpace anything else in the neighborhood. As it is proposed, one would be looking at three structures next to each other that would be the three largest structures in the neighborhood. He noted the new structures are built to the minimum setback and is very high density. He stated he would be looking for something that is half the size on a single lot, let along split onto a double lot. He also acknowledged the fact that these lots are in the Equestrian District and this new proposal would not have any type of accommodations for large animals, which is getting further and further away from the rural type of feel. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he is less troubled by the 90 foot width than he is by the neighborhood compatibility and the size of this home as opposed to the size of the neighboring homes. He felt that if the architect and owner can address the issue of size and gain the support of the neighborhood, the project may come before the Planning Commission and be approved. Commissioner James stated the Planning Commission is not here to grant applications to people who are really nice people and perhaps deny some for people who are not such nice people. Instead the Commission is here to try to balance the rights of an individual to do what they would like to do with their property with the needs and desires of the greater community. He stated there are zoning rules as well as the ability for the community to have input into what individuals can do on their property. He stated there are very firm ordinances and rules, and noted there is a rule that a lot must be 90 feet in width. He did not think it was the Commission's job to say this is really close and maybe the rule should be bent without being able to make the necessary findings to approve a Variance. He referred to the comment that these two houses appear to be a compound, and wondered if when one or both of the houses are sold the types of problems that it will create. He stated the Patels have had the opportunity to work with the Planning Department to find something that was acceptable, and having found no support for the project from the Planning Department, it appears the applicant thought to bring it to the Commission for review. He stated he was not in favor of the project as currently presented and was not inclined to suggest to the Patels what could be done to make this a better project. He felt that the applicant needs to work with staff to find a solution that would work and be within the code parameters. Commissioner Nelson agreed with the comments of Commissioners Bradley and James. He noted he had problems with the bulk and mass, problems with the Q District, problems with the compound appearance, and in particular the problem with having only twenty feet between the homes. Commissioner Leon applauded the applicant for stating his willingness to work with staff to redesign the project. He expressed his concerns with the bulk and mass of the current design, which plays into neighborhood compatibility. He noted that the surrounding houses are single-story, ranch style houses, with the exception of the next-door neighbor and a few mansion—like homes on fairly large lots. He recommended that, if this project comes back to the Commission, that there be two individual houses so that it not look in any way like a single structure or a compound. He felt the privacy issue with the neighbors should be addressed, and that a compatible size would be more in the neighborhood of Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 8 4,000 square feet. He discussed his disappointment in losing a one acre lot in this Q District. However, he felt that if the requirements are all met to subdivide the lot, the owner has the right to do so. He therefore supported staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated the bulk and mass of the project was of a concern to him. He stated that, even though this lot borders Rolling Hills Estates, he felt that neighborhood means neighborhood and the Commission needs to listen to the concerns of the neighbors in Rolling Hills Estates. He did not think that looking at the second story and seeing one massive wall was a good thing for the neighbors, and that some type of articulation was needed. He was also a bit surprised at the low amount of grading proposed for two such large houses. He agreed that the two homes together look a bit like a compound, and felt that two houses with independent characters would make more sense. Finally, he noted that in looking at the grading plans there were some walls that were ten foot walls, but only called out as eight foot walls on the plans, and asked the architect to ensure the future plans are accurate. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the staff recommendation to continue the public hearing to September 27, 2016 to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Director Mihranian noted that the configuration of the lots may change, as well as the design of the homes, and asked if the Commission would like to see a new silhouette placed at the site to reflect these changes. He also asked, in light of the comments made by the Commission, if the applicant felt they would be prepared to present the new information at the September 27th meeting. Tim Racisz stated he did not know how much time he would need until he has met with staff and the owners make a decision on how they want to proceed with the project. Director Mihranian suggested continuing the public hearing to September 27th, and if need be, the item can be continued at that time. Vice Chairman Cruikshank felt that a new silhouette was needed, especially if the changes are fairly significant. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend his motion to add that a new silhouette be placed at the site to reflect the revised design of the homes, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Bradley felt that if the project is going to be redesigned, and a new silhouette erected, that a new notice to the neighborhood should be sent out so that all of the neighbors know when this project will be coming back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 9 Director Mihranian responded that if the silhouette does change staff can issue a courtesy notice to the neighbors that the silhouette has been changed to reflect the current project and that it's scheduled to be heard on September 27tH Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion to have staff issue a courtesy notice to the neighbors regarding the silhouette and the continued hearing date, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The motion was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting. Commissioner James noted that before this public hearing he visited the project site and looked at it from all angles involved. All of the Commissioners indicated they had been to the site. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on August 23, 2016 Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted that earlier in the meeting a speaker discussed the continuing issues with Cal Water, and he requested staff prepare a staff report on the activities and issues with the neighborhood at the Cal Water site. Director Mihranian responded that staff can prepare a status update for the September 13th agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 10