Loading...
PC MINS 20170411 Approved 4/25/1 7 ; 4 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:03 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioner Bradley was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Mikhail, Associate Planner Silva, and Assistant City Attorney Gerli. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at their April 4, 2017 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to explore bringing in-house certain animal control responsibilities for the Council's consideration at a future meeting; directed Staff to file with the State the 2016 General Plan Annual Report and Housing Element Annual Report; and adopted an application fee and reduced appeal fee for minor modification requests. He reported that at the Budget Workshop the City Council expressed an interest in funding a full-time and a part-time Code Enforcement Officer. Finally, he noted that at their April 18th meeting the City Council will consider the Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit for the Ride-To-Fly program. Director Mihranian introduced Assistant City Attorney Elena Gerli. Commissioner Nelson reported that he attended the April 10, 2017 City Council Budget Meeting and also noted that the Public Works Director has recently resigned. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Noel Weiss reported on the progress of the potential Green Hills Settlement Agreement, and his feelings that the City Council has not shown an ability to close the deal. In terms of a previous decision regarding Green Hills, and whether or not rooftop interments would eventually be allowed at Inspiration Slope, he pointed out that Inspiration Slope is in Area 2 that never included any provision in the Master Plan for rooftop interments. He did not think it was appropriate for Green Hills to segway into this type of entitlement without an amendment to the Master Plan. Sharon Loveys expressed her disappointment with the Commission's decision regarding Green Hills at their last meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the March 28, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Nelson noted a typo on page 17 of the Minutes. Vice Chairman Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0). NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00176): 5375 Rollingridge Road Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project and showing drawings of the proposed floor plan and elevations. He reviewed the proposed grading, and the need for the cut and fill on the property. He stated that as part of the public notice process Staff received a number of public comments expressing concerns with view, height, roof style, and neighborhood compatibility. In regards to the roof style, he noted that within the twenty closest homes the roof styles vary and include gable to flat roofs. He stated the proposed project has been conditioned to utilize roofing materials which resemble earth-tone colors to minimize visual impacts to the neighbors. He stated that neighbors at 5329 and 5345 Bayridge Road had concerns with view impairment, however he showed photos taken from these residences indicating that Staff felt the proposed project caused no significant view impairment from these homes. He stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Nelson asked why homes on Bayridge Road were not included in Staffs neighborhood compatibility analysis with regards to the twenty closest homes. Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 2 Associate Planner Silva explained that Staff's neighborhood compatibility assessment of the twenty closest homes is done with regards to homes in the same zoning district. The subject property is in the RS-2 zone and the homes along Bayridge Road are in the RS- 5 zoning district. Director Mihranian added that this neighborhood compatibility process of assessing the twenty closes properties in the same zoning district is codified in the Municipal Code. Director Mihranian asked if the Commissioners would indicated whether or not they had performed a site visit of the subject property. All Commissioner's had visited the property. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Dahl (architect) explained one of the most critical issues for this project was Fire Department access, and the Fire Department will not approve the project until the driveway is brought into compliance. He discussed the design process for the basement, and explained how works with the existing topography. In designing the home he explained how the amount of grading was minimized at the site. He stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Nelson asked what the Fire Department required for the minimum width of the road. Mr. Dahl answered that the Fire Department required a minimum 20 foot width. Commissioner Nelson noted that the resident to the east of the subject property has widened the road for his project, and asked Mr. Dahl if he would be willing to increase the road width to match what was done by the neighbor to the east. Mr. Dahl noted that he will be going into a hillside to widen the road and he was concerned that widening the road too much might cut into the critical slope of the property. Commissioner James stated that from the properties on Bayridge Road above, there seems to be a lot of public concern regarding the proposed flat roof, as not matching the Mediterranean style of other homes in the neighborhood. He asked if there was something that could be done about that, and if there was some reason a flat roof was chosen. Mr. Dahl replied that a crushed stone on the roof will help with the look of the roof. He noted that most of the surrounding homes are not red tile roofs, but rather slate, shingle, or some other type of material. He stated that from the properties above, most of the roof will be hidden in the trees. He explained that the flat roof was chosen because it is part of the contemporary style of the home. Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 3 Commissioner James referred to a power point slide showing the proposed grading and asked if the blue area on the slide was fill that was a result of prior grading, as he felt this was Staff's justification for meeting a certain code requirement. Mr. Dahl responded that the fill was not a result of prior grading. He stated that the driving force behind the cut and fill started with the driveway. He explained that the driveway has to come up several feet from where it current is, and the driveway wouldn't work without pulling the garage up high enough to keep that slope at the maximum gradient that is allowed by the Fire Department. He noted that most of the earth work will stay on site. Susan MacShara (5329 Bayridge Rd.) stated her home is directly above the proposed garage. She stated that her main objection to this proposed project is the bulk and mass of the large flat roof, and the flat roof maximizes the bulk and mass of the structure. She noted that even though the homes on Bayridge are not considered in the neighborhood compatibility analysis, they are the ones most affected because they look down on the property. She stated the flat roof will be a prominent feature in her immediate view and will have an impact on her enjoyment of the view. She was also concerned with view impairment if trees are planted along the proposed retaining wall and noted that the 15 foot garage will block her view of the Lloyd Wright Bird of Paradise home on Via Campesina. Vice Chairman Cruikshank referred to Ms. MacShara's written comments that were submitted as part of the staff report. He noted there are comments requesting an opening be provided in the proposed retaining wall to accommodate a path that they would use to take bicycles down to ride around the golf course, and asked Ms. MacShara to explain the comment. Ms. MacShara noted the area on the aerial photo and requested that area be landscaped so that it can be used as path. Commissioner James noted that Ms. MacShara objected to the flat roof because it accentuates the bulk and mass, however if the roof were to be a pitched roof her views of the Lloyd Wright house would be blocked even more. He asked the speaker if a pitched roof would be better or worse for her. Ms. MacShara answered that if she had to choose one or the other, she would prefer not to have the massive flat roof below her. Frank Semelka (5329 Bayridge Road) stated he and his wife purchased their home primarily based on the view and setting. He described the view as consisting of the coastline, golf course, Mediterranean homes below and a country road. He felt the new proposed home threatens the tranquility they enjoy from their home. He did not feel it was possible to define a structure which maximizes apparent bulk and mass as more than a cuboid. He stated this proposed structure, which resembles a large box warehouse, will be dominate from nearly every room in his home. He felt the architectural style could not be further from that of the existing neighborhood, and noted there is not one flat roof Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 4 in the immediate neighborhood. He felt a very large, thoughtfully designed home fitting the architectural style of the neighborhood would be easily achievable on this lot. He stated that the one flat roof at 3330 Via Campesina has a flat roof, but is 7/10 of a mile away and is discretely tucked into the hillside. He stated that proposed structure does not belong in the neighborhood and upends the rural charm of the neighborhood. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Semelka if he would have the same objections if this home had a pitched, red tile type of roof. Mr. Semelka answered he would not object to such a roof. He stated that the applicants may have to sacrifice high ceilings or make some other concessions, but everyone has to do that when designing a new home, just as he did when he built his home. George Shen stated his home is directly above the proposed home. He felt the design is beautiful if it were a standalone home, but it does not fit in this neighborhood. He distributed photos to the Commission that were taken by a professional photographer from his rear yard. He felt the photo shows that this is a beautiful neighborhood below, but the proposed house will ruin the view of the neighborhood. Sigrid Allman stated she lives directly to the east of the subject property. She felt it was unfair that people can't build something that is somewhat compatible. She discussed how trees are blocking her view of the coastline, so she felt she understood the neighbor's concerns. However, she pointed out that their views won't be blocked, they just don't like looking at the large roof below them. Chairman Tomblin asked Mrs. Allman if she was in favor of the proposed structure. Mrs. Allman answered that she was in favor of the proposed design and structure. Ralph Allman explained how, when he built his home, he was required by the Fire Department to widen the road. He noted that with the wider road and retaining wall that he built a fire truck can now get through, even if a car is parked on the street. He stated that a fire truck cannot pass in front of the subject property with the narrow road. He supported earth-tone colors on the flat roof and felt there would be a way to make the roof very pleasant to view from above. He pointed out that Rollingridge Road is a private road and all of the residents pay to maintain that road. He felt that to grant access to the residents above to that road was dangerous because of security issues. He stated he was in support of the proposed project. Commissioner James asked staff if the private road has anything to do with what the Commission is considering with this project. Director Mihranian answered that, aside from the grading to expand the width of the road, the private road is not part of the project. Chairman Tomblin asked Staff if the Fire Department will be requiring a new fire hydrant. Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 5 Associate Planner Silva answered that a new hydrant is not being required. Bill Gerstner stated that after viewing the plans and the silhouette, he did not have a problem with the proposed house. He pointed out that this neighborhood was, at one time, primarily 1,800 to 2,000 square foot ranch style homes with cedar shake roofs. This neighborhood is now transitioned to mostly larger, Mediterranean style, homes. He recognized the neighbors above will not like looking down at a larger roof, but pointed out this is a different zone which allows for much larger homes. In regards to the road, he clarified that the road is actually part of each of the properties so each property owner owns the section of road in front of their house. He stated each property owner grants specific easements for access to each other to use the road. He recalled something in the deed restrictions that states they cannot expand the use of the road and allow it to service additional properties. Commissioner Emenhiser recalled approving the addition to Mr. Gerstner's house, and asked how big of an addition was approved. Mr. Gerstner answered that two additional structures to a 2,500 square foot house were approved, making a total of approximately 6,500 square feet. He stated that the Planning Commission approved flat roofs and he intends to use river rocks and flat stones on the roof. He explained his intent was to use these same stones in the landscaping so that when looking from above there would be consistency. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Gerstner if he had any other opinions regarding this project. Mr. Gerstner reminded the Commission that when doing neighborhood compatibility the guidelines state it is by zoning district, and this neighborhood is zoned RS-2, while the Bayridge Road neighborhood is zoned RS-5, and the two neighborhoods are very different. He did not think the Commission could make a comparison between the two neighborhoods. In regards to bulk and mass, he could not remember a time when he was a Planning Commissioner when the Commission ever considered bulk and mass when looking down on a home. Typically mass and bulk was considered because the home rose up and towered over the street or a neighboring home. He felt there were ways to adjust the finish of the roof by utilizing color and tone of the roof to better blend in with other roofs. He also suggested working with the roof so that some type of shadow is cast on parts of it to help it appear smaller. Commissioner Nelson stated that he saw no problem with the roof as proposed, and asked Mr. Gerstner if he saw any potential problems. Mr. Gerstner stated that he had no problem with the roof, noting this is a downslope lot and the roof is below the road level. He added that it is unique to a property where the road elevation is over 20 feet above the subject lot. The views of the upslope neighbors cannot possibly be obstructed by any structure placed on this lot under any circumstances Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 6 because of the topography difference. He added that a lot of the properties in this City look down on dozens or even hundreds of roofs and when he was on the Planning Commission he did not recall ever hearing a conversation regarding the character of any of those roofs from any of the uphill houses. Jeffrey Dahl (in rebuttal) showed an area on the proposed grading plan where a large amount of cut has taken place. He also referred to the front and rear elevations, and noted that there is already terracing of the roof proposed, noting some of it is subtle and some of it is not so subtle. Finally, he noted there were comments from the neighbors that this house doesn't fit into the neighborhood, however they want to preserve their view of the Lloyd Wright house, which he felt was the most uniquely designed house in Palos Verdes Estates and the design does not in any way fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Dahl if he had any comments on how he could break up the flat appearance of the roof, either with color or texture. Mr. Dahl responded that having a grave texture on the roof will definitely help, especially with the proposed terracing of the roof. He noted the terracing will pick up shadow lines from one terrace to the next. He also pointed out that the upslope neighbors are not looking directly down at the house, so they will also be seeing the parapets. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Dahl what color or colors he was considering for the roof. Mr. Dahl answered that he was looking at a terra cotta tone, which he felt was the best for the people above. He felt this would blend in with the roof next door, as well as the roofs in Palos Verdes Estates. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if any mechanical equipment will be placed on the roof. Mr. Dahl answered that there will be no mechanical equipment placed on the roof. Director Mihranian added that the Code does not allow mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof. Chairman Tomblin asked Staff if there was a condition of approval that the color of the roof is to match, as closely as possible, the rest of the neighborhood. Director Mihranian referred to Condition No. 28 which requires the roof to be of earth toned materials deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director. Chairman Tomblin felt that language should be added that the roof match the other roofs and be of a terra cotta coloring. Chairman Tomblin asked about the use of solar panels on the roof. Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 7 Mr. Dahl stated that solar panels are always a possibility, but the owners have not decided whether or not that is an option. Chairman Tomblin asked Staff about the City's Code in regards to solar panels. Director Mihranian answered that the City Code permits roof-mounted solar panels, noting there is actually very little regulation in the Code as solar panels are regulated by the State. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner James stated he has concerns with the Code sections more so than with the house. He referred to page 11 of the staff report and the discussion of grading. He asked Staff to explain their justification to allow a variance from the limitation on cut or fill. Director Mihranian explained that the findings established in the Grading Code are guidelines and there are minimum design standards established when reviewing grading. The way the findings are established allows for deviation from the design standards provided specific findings are made. In regards to the application before the Commission, the lot has already been graded to accommodate the current house on the property. When considering what is reasonable to accommodate the proposed development, Staff supports the proposed grading even though it exceeds some of the standards listed in the findings. He explained the proposed grading is to raise the pad to reduce the steepness of the driveway for emergency access and it allows the structure to be notched into the hillside which minimizes the visual impact of the house. He stated Staff is looking at the grading in all of these aspects as a means of making the required findings. Commissioner James explained that the problem he has is that Staff is taking the Code section and saying one can't do this unless you think it's reasonable. However, that is not what the Code section says, as it says reasonable and necessary. He questioned what that means. Director Mihranian stated that the question Commissioners need to ask themselves is if they see the grading that is being requested as reasonable and necessary to accommodate the proposed development including the manipulation of the grades. He explained that Staff believes the grading is necessary because it notches the structure into the slope and reduces its visual appearance. Commissioner James noted that the Code allows for one upslope retaining wall of a certain height and one downslope retaining wall of a certain height. He stated that Staff slides by that requirement with seven or eight walls that don't meet these requirements so the Commission has to make the tenth finding. He stated he was a bit troubled to allow seven or eight walls that are much taller than what the Code allows. Director Mihranian stated there are several retaining walls, which directly relates to the height of those walls. The overall height of the walls was controlled by designing more Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 8 walls at a lower height. He stated that it is not uncommon for sloping lots to have more than one retaining wall. He did not think the same standard that is applied to a pad lot should be applied to a sloping lot. He noted this finding does not break it down to that level of scrutiny, which is something the Commission has to look at. Commissioner James explained his objection is not to what is being proposed, as he felt what is proposed is reasonable, but rather how the Code is written. He stated the job of the Commission is to apply the law, which in this case is the Code, and when projects start to move away from what is allowed in the Code he begins to be troubled. Director Mihranian pointed out that that tenth finding allows the Commission to deviate from the basic grading design standards that apply Citywide. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to adopt Staff's recommendation with the revision to add terra cotta as the color of the roof, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Director Mihranian proposed the following language for Condition No. 28: He proposed striking out "earth tone" and what would read would be, and shall consist of a terra cotta color with finishes and materials deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Emenhiser accepted this language, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Nelson felt this project makes sense and was in support of the project. Commissioner Leon stated he was also in favor of the project. He asked that the acceptable materials on the roof include some texture and not be just a gravel roof. Commissioner James noted that everyone who spoke against the project live on the street above it and look down on the property, and everyone who spoke in favor of the project live on the same street. He stated that there are development rules in the City, and while this project may push the envelope on some of those rules, he did not think it violated any of the rules. He felt that in the spirit of what is trying to be accomplished this home is probably as acceptable as many on the street. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted the roof seemed to be the focal point of conversation, and felt many of the issues were resolved with requiring the terra cotta color and the articulation on the roof. He stated that he was in support of the motion. Chairman Tomblin stated he was able to make the necessary findings and would be in favor of the proposed project. The motion to conditionally approve the project with the amended language to Condition No. 28, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2017-12 was approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 9 NEW BUSINESS 3. Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy Status Report Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, stating that it has been some time since the Planning Commission has heard anything on this topic, therefore Staff is providing a more comprehensive and detailed report within the written document. She gave a brief background of the project and briefly explained the partnerships and the revised Strategy Plan, as outlined in the report. She noted the City of Los Angeles is moving forward with their similar version of the Strategy Plan, referred to as the San Pedro Neighborhood Community Plan along Western Avenue. She noted the City Council's main concern, which was what will happen with the traffic flow along Western Avenue, and reported that there is now funding available for the Public Works Department to implement the previously reviewed and approved Western Avenue Traffic Improvement Plan. She explained that the timeline of the documents discussed in the staff report depends on the priorities of the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if a bicycle lane was part of the Strategy Plan. Senior Planner Mikhail answered that the City Council approved, as a visionary tool, having bike lanes on Western Avenue. She displayed section drawings of one-way bike lanes on Western Avenue. In addition, a study will be done to determine whether or not bicycles are appropriate on Western Avenue. Commissioner Nelson noted that Western Avenue is owned by Cal-Trans and therefore the funding that was received will be used by Cal-Trans to make the improvements. Senior Planner Mikhail explained there was a partnership between the City of Los Angles, Cal-Trans and Rancho Palos Verdes as it relates to the Strategy Plan and the Measure R funding. In this case, the City is taking the lead on the improvements and the costs associated with it are captured in the Capital Improvement Plan based on Measure R funding opportunities that could be used to implement the items listed in the Strategy Plan. Commissioner Nelson discussed the private development that is about to occur along Western Avenue that will be blocking views from an apartment building, but which the Planning Commission was told they can't do anything about because it's already been approved. He asked if the City is ready for the legal constraints that blocking views will bring. Director Mihranian clarified that there is no approval for the strategy that is identified in the Housing Element. He stated that Staff plans on taking an item to the City Council to initiate a code amendment later this summer. If the City Council decides to initiate it, Staff will bring the item to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 10 Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted this document is a strategy document and does not overrule the Building Code or the General Plan. He asked when the last time a signal synchronization was done on Western Avenue. Senior Planner Mikhail stated the Traffic Improvement Plan was approved in 2007 and any synchronization may have been done before that, but she was not certain. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked Staff what they envisioned the landscaping would look like along Western Avenue. He could envision the landscaping in Rancho Palos Verdes looking good, but questioned how the median and the City of Los Angeles areas would look. Director Mihranian did not think Staff was qualified to answer this question, as it is a Public Works matter. Senior Planner Mikhail noted that the Traffic Improvement Plan is looking at only traffic flow and the Strategy Plan looks at aesthetics. She stated that in terms of aesthetics and maintenance, that will be addressed by the City Council in the future. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Christina Jordan asked if there was another road, other than Western Avenue, that will be serving the proposed housing development noting that Western Avenue is already very congested. Senior Planner Mikhail answered that no applications have been submitted to the City for the development project. Director Mihranian clarified that if Ms. Jordan was asking about the new development across from Green Hills that is in the City of Los Angeles. He was not aware of another road that was proposed that would connect to the development. He asked Ms. Jordan for her contact information and he would find more information for her. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved staff's recommendation to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on April 25, 2017 Director Mihranian updated the Commission on the pre-agenda items. Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. Planning Commission Minutes April 11,2016 Page 12