Loading...
PC MINS 20170509 Approved 6/27/17 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 7:05 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Nelson, Vice Chairman James, and Chairman Cruikshank. Absent: Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon, and Tomblin were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Assistant Planner Lugo, and Assistant City Attorney Gerli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Assistant City Attorney Gerli led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the May 2, 2017 meeting, the City Council received a report on the City's plans for storing electronic documents and that beginning June 1st, Geotechnical Reports submitted to the Building and Safety Division will require an electronic copy in addition to the hard copy. Director Mihranian noted that late correspondence was handed out on agenda item No. 2; that the Commission-approved new single-family residence on Rollingridge Road was appealed by an upslope neighbor and that Staff is meeting with both parties to address the appeal concerns; and that Staff proposed to adjourn tonight's meeting in memory of former Planning Commissioner Jack Karp who served on the Planning Commission from 2004 to 2008. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the April 25, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Nelson noted typos on page 1, 9, 12 of the minutes. Commissioner Bradley moved to approve the minutes amended to correct the typos and was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (4-0) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016- 00162): 30717 Rue Langlois Director Mihranian asked if the Commissioners had visited the project site to view the revised silhouette. Commissioner Nelson, Vice Chairman James, and Chairman Cruikshank stated they had viewed the revised silhouette. Commissioner Bradley stated he had not visited the site. Director Mihranian presented the staff report, summarizing the original project presented to the Planning Commission at its March 28, 2017 meeting, and then summarized the proposed changes made by the applicant in response to the Commission's direction. He noted the setbacks of the proposed current design as compared to the previous design. He also displayed a Site Plan and Elevations comparing the previous and current designs. He stated Staff was seeking direction from the Commission as to whether the changes made to the current design address the concerns expressed by the Commission at the March 28th meeting. If the Commission feels the revised design is acceptable, Staff is recommending that a Resolution memorializing the Commission's decision come back at the June 13, 2017 meeting. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Louie Tomaro (architect) explained the main idea in the redesign was to shrink and pull back the structure. He also noted the rear of the building is now lined up with the neighboring properties. He stated there is a covered porch that matches the neighboring property to the south. He stated the roof is now sloping rather than flat, and that the skylight is now on the westerly side of the building and will not be visible to the upslope properties. He stated the proposed upper balcony is completely inside the "H" layout of the home and when on the balcony, one will not be able to see the neighbors' residences on either side. He also noted the basement has been eliminated. He stated the actual house is now 3,800 square feet, and he added a 770 square foot garage. He also explained they are lowering the building pad by one foot with grading and lowering the interior plate heights to reduce the overall height and mass of the residence. Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 2 Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Tomaro why the basement was eliminated, noting it was his recollection that none of the Commissioners had a problem with the basement. Mr. Tomaro explained the rationale was that the project described to the neighbors showed the house as over 6,000 square feet. Rather than eliminating space, he felt he should come back to a proposal that people would feel was a reasonable size house. He stated he was hoping that the Commission will agree that 3,800 square feet is not an unreasonable size for a home in this neighborhood. He also stated he understood the basement was not an issue with the Commission, however the numbers and what the neighbors spoke to the Commission about at the last meeting was in regards to overall square footage. Bobbi Johnson (30703 Rue Valois) expressed her thoughts that an effort was made on the revised plans, however she questioned why the ground level could not be lowered even more into the ground so that the house did not appear as large. She stated that the house is proposed at 3,800 square feet, but there is still a large garage that adds square footage to the lot. She felt the house on the north is still too close to the neighbors who have windows, and that there were too many elements that aren't right. She stated that anyone who wants to build a house from the ground up in this neighborhood should build something that is appropriate for the neighborhood. She stated this plan sends the wrong message for the future of this particular neighborhood. Yantien Wong (30715 Rue Valois) stated her house is directly behind the applicant's home. She acknowledged the changes that have been made, however stated that from a height and mass perspective the changes do not really help her or any of the neighbors on the upper street who are worried about the height and mass of the structure. She stated that the new silhouette is only marginally different from the first silhouette. She read a letter from her neighbor at 30903 Rue Valois in which she states she is still deeply concerned about the proposed development as it will exceed the City's height restriction and significantly impact the neighbors' views and property values. Wendy Watson stated she had a general concern with bulk and mass of future homes in the neighborhood and the potential mansionization. She stated she was very happy the basement had been removed. Sherry Parker (30653 Rue Valois) stated that after the last meeting she had hoped the revised plans would address most of the concerns expressed by the neighbors and the Commission. However, she stated the revised plans only comply with a few of the Commission's recommendations and the new proposed structure is still not compatible. She stated the revised structure is still too tall, and has too much bulk and mass. She noted the revised living area has only been reduced by 432 square feet, and the height reduced by less than two feet. She explained it took her 15 years and tremendous sacrifices to make her dream come true to finally be able to buy a home with an ocean view. She did not think it was fair that her dreams will be shattered because the new owner of the house is trying to ruin the neighborhood character, ignore the existing standards, and handicap her views. Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 3 H.P. (Rue Langlois) stated his home is next door to the immediate south of the proposed project. He stated he shared the concerns that have been expressed, however as the immediate neighbor, his main concerns were privacy and setbacks. He stated that it appears the new plans have scaled back the setbacks to be considerably in line with his property at the rear. He also stated he has no objection to the patio cover in the rear, as long as it is in line with his patio cover. However, in reviewing the revised plan, he noted that privacy is a big concern, and noted a small balcony above the patio cover. He expressed a concern that from that balcony there would still be a direct line of vision into his living space, and therefore objected to the balcony as a continued privacy concern. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bradley stated the applicant has done a good job on this redesign, noting however that it is still on the far upper side in terms of size. He stated he never had an issue with the basement, and eliminating the basement has still left a lot of bulk and mass above ground. Vice Chairman James noted that most of the people concerned with neighborhood compatibility do not live on the same street as the proposed project, but rather on the street above. He stated that he understood their concerns, however there are overall rules the Commission must follow when considering views and whether or not a structure obstructs certain views. He explained that ocean views are protected, however the view half way to the ocean is not, and the Commission is tasked to apply the rules. He stated that the redesigned home is still large, and is particularly big for the size of the lot. However, he also noted there are two-story homes in the neighborhood, both on the subject street and the street above. He stated his job is to apply the laws of the City when making his decision. He added that he did not particularly see an issue with the small balcony that was pointed out by the neighbor, noting that there is not perfect privacy, but the applicant has done a lot to improve the situation. Commissioner Nelson stated this is 2017 and the majority of homes in this neighborhood were built in 1960. He stated he did not expect people to build 1960 style homes now because it is necessary to move into the 21St century. He stated that he did not think the current home was livable in its current condition and something has to be done with this home. He therefore stated that he was in favor of the proposed project. Chairman Cruikshank stated he was pleased that the neighbor to the south spoke, as they are the ones most impacted by this project. He stated that the amount of vertical mass that he was previously concerned with has gone away. He discussed the skylight and the concern for the neighbors above who look down at the skylight at night. He stated he was pleased that the skylight had been moved to the other side of the roof and that the flat roof was eliminated. He stated that he was in favor of approval of the project. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman James. Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 4 Director Mihranian clarified that would reflect Alternative Number 1 in the staff report which is to close the public hearing, approve with conditions the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review, and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting that decision for adoption at the June 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bradley questioned what will happen to the two existing trees, and requested the applicant return to the podium. Chairman Cruikshank reopened the public hearing. Louie Tomaro stated that currently the plan is to remove the trees, as they felt it would open up the views for the neighbor to the south. However if the neighbors would prefer the trees to stay to help any privacy concerns, they would be amenable to do anything they can to keep the tree. R.R. (Rue Langlois) commented on the proposed balcony, stating that when one is standing on this balcony they will be able to look directly into her house. She therefore stated her preference would be to eliminate the tree and modify or eliminate the proposed balcony so that it does not have the visual line-of-sight into her living room. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson commented that he felt privacy would be improved with the tree in place. Director Mihranian noted the Commission could amend the motion to include direction for Staff to include a condition of approval that requires the tree on the south property line remain. He pointed out that Staff does not typically use foliage to mitigate privacy concerns since foliage can die and if the foliage is then removed the applicant would be in violation of the conditions of approval. He therefore did not recommend the Commission include a condition of approval regarding the tree. He suggested that as an alternative the Commission could require some type of screening be installed to the southern side of the balcony. Commissioner Bradley stated that he still had concerns in regards to the overall size of the project and stated he did not think he could support the project, regardless of the privacy issues. The motion to approve Alternative One of the staff report was approved, (3-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting. Director Mihranian stated the Resolution will be brought to the Commission for approval at the June 13th meeting. He explained the appeal period does not start until after the approval of the Resolution on June 13th. Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS 3. 2017 Five-Year Capital Improvement General Plan Consistency Finding Assistant Planner Lugo presented the staff report, stating that what is before the Commission is a Resolution finding the draft 2017 five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is consistent with the General Plan. She briefly explained the CIP and how it is used. She stated that Staff has reviewed the list of capital projects identified in the draft CIP and believes that the City's 2017 draft CIP continues to be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution included with the staff report. Commissioner Nelson noted a typos on pages 1, 2 and 3 of the staff report. Vice Chairman James moved to approve staff's recommendation and adopt the Resolution finding that the City's 2017 draft CIP is consistent with the General Plan, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Cruikshank stated that the only thing he could see as a potential inconsistency, which was not one of the actual projects, was that there is so much construction occurring in the City and on the Peninsula with related traffic issues. He stated that there should be good coordination in scheduling these projects so that when they occur they are not occurring all at once in one neighborhood so that the neighborhood is not overly burdened. He felt it was important to coordinate when and where projects are occurring. The motion was approved, and P.C. Resolution 2017-15 was approved, (4-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 23, 2017 Because of the lack of items scheduled for the May 23rd agenda, Chairman Cruikshank noted that Staffs recommendation was to cancel that meeting and reconvene on June 13, 2017. He noted that he would be absent from that meeting. Commissioner Nelson moved to cancel the May 23, 2017 meeting and to reconvene on June 13, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. The motion was approved without objection. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned in memory of Jack Karp at 8:05 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 6