Loading...
PC MINS 20050614CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 14, 2005 CALL TO ORDER App June 28, 2 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Karp, Perestam, Vice Chairman Knight, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Commissioners Golida and Mueller were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Blumenthal, and Associate Planner Schonborn. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed 4 items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 3, discussed the upcoming June 21st City Council meeting regarding the Ella Road appeal item, and discussed the possibility of a Planning Commission/City Council joint workshop. Vice Chairman Knight reported on his attendance at the opening of the West Basin Municipal Water District's new recycling facility. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON -AGENDA ITEMS None CONTINUED BUSINESS Revision to Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00160): 49 1/4 Rockinghorse Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the Planning Commission had directed staff to incorporate into the Resolution language regarding landscaping at the top of the driveway, allowing illumination of the driveway within 20 feet of the residence, and the recommendations from the biology report. Additionally, he explained that staff has consulted with the City Attorney and is recommending one additional condition of approval to require the applicant obtain approval of a Site Plan Review from the City Council for a driveway that is within the Open Space Hazard Zone, pursuant to Municipal Code requirements. He also read a minor change into the first page of the proposed Resolution, the fourth whereas paragraph, to say the driveway was cut into the slope without City approval. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution as amended. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to clarify the added condition regarding City Council approval of the Site Plan Review for the driveway. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Code allows for access roads through Open Space Hazard Zones with City Council approval. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Stan Rinehart (applicant) stated he agrees with the conditions imposed on the project and is available to answer any questions. Carol Falstrup 49 3/4 Rockinghorse Road stated that she feels the new plans are quite an improvement over the old plans. She stated that she and her husband were a little troubled over how the situation was portrayed in previous meetings, and wanted to clear the record. She felt that she and her husband have bent over backwards to try to accommodate the easement situation. She stated that, although parking was not discussed in the public forum, it was agreed to in a meeting with Mr. Rinehart, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Devoran, and her husband. She explained that the reason they did not agree to Mr. Rinehart's proposal was because he had introduced some communal parking that had not been previously discussed. Further, at the previous meeting Mr. Rinehart mentioned the Fire Department had approved one parking spot, which she was not aware of, and probably would have agreed to. She concluded by stating her main concern has always been that she and her husband retain their rights to the easement, and how can the City assure them that Mr. Rinehart will not put something in that will obstruct their use of the easement. She did not feel this was properly addressed in the previous meetings. Commissioner Gerstner asked Ms. Falstrup to clarify what easement she was discussing and her concerns. Planning Commission Minutes June '14, 2005 Page 2 Mrs. Falstrup explained that at the last meeting her husband reiterated his concerns that the easement retains its integrity. She stated that when meeting with Mr. Rinehart regarding the easement it was always a give and take situation, in that she would give up 20 feet of the easement if she received something in return. She did not feel the Resolution addressed the integrity of the easement. Chairman Tetreault felt that with the relocation of Mr. Rinehart's driveway the issues of encroaching into the easement should be gone, and he was not aware of anything that would directly impact the use or availability of the easement to the easement holders. He stated that nothing being approved by the City would interfere with that easement. Director/Secretary Rojas added there are no improvements proposed within the easement and staff is comfortable recommending approval of the project. He noted, however that this is a private easement and anything that is put in the easement in the future would be a civil matter that the City would have no involvement in. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-27 thereby formalizing the approval of revision the Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00160), as amended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00629): 6102 Armaga Spring Road Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He noted that this application does not include any additional enclosed area, and that it is strictly the architectural features that are triggering the Height Variation. He explained that staff was able to make the necessary findings, noting that staff was able to identify other homes in the neighborhood with the same architectural style and bulk and mass that is being proposed. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the Height Variation as conditioned. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify on the displayed photographs the various proposed changes to the residence. Associate Planner Blumenthal clarified on the photographs where the proposed modifications would be located. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if the homes in the Wallace Ranch development were included when considering neighborhood compatibility. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 3 Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that some of the homes in Wallace Ranch were included when determining neighborhood compatibility. Vice Chairman Knight asked if there were any other homes in the neighborhood that had roof decks facing the street. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that there are homes in the immediate neighborhood with roof decks. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight felt that a condition should be added that the gazebo not be enclosed unless the proper application is submitted to the City. He felt that this would help any future owner understand the parameters of the Development Code and what could be done with that gazebo. Commissioner Perestam was concerned that there was an area of less than 10 feet where the rear trellis would be located. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the 10 feet at the rear trellis would be measured to the post, and therefore there would be some overhang. He recommended that if the Planning Commission is concerned about that setback, that Condition 14 be modified to require a setback certification. Commissioner Perestam commented that the tree in the front yard helps greatly in softening the impact of the bulk of the house, and encouraged the homeowner to do as much as possible to maintain as much of the possible of the tree. Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2005-28 thereby approving the Height Variation with the added condition that a setback certification be required at the side yard. Vice Chairman Knight moved to amend the motion to include a condition that the gazebo not be enclosed with glass or screen without the proper applications made to the City. Commissioner Perestam accepted the amendment, and Vice Chairman Knight seconded the motion. The motion was approved, (5-0). 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-001461: 7264 Berry Hill Drive Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. He stated that during the noticing period staff received several letters in opposition to the proposed project, with issues raised of view impairment, privacy infringement, and neighborhood compatibility. He stated that staff conducted site visits Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 4 to the area and some of the residences to better understand the concerns expressed. With regards to view impairment, he stated that staff conducted a site visit to the McCaskill residence across the street from the applicant located at 7249 Berry Hill Drive. He displayed pictures taken from that residence and explained that, in accordance with the Height Variation Guidelines, staff determined the kitchen to be the viewing area as it is a room considered to be in the primary living area of the house. He explained that staff determined that the proposed addition does not result in a significant view impairment, as any addition added that was below 16 feet in height would block the same view from the neighbor's kitchen. He discussed the issues of privacy, stating that staff conducted site visits to the adjacent properties on either side of the applicant. As a result, staff identified a window that could result in a privacy issue, and staff was recommending that the window be clearstory and/or be a frosted glass window. Staff also identified that the proposed balcony would look directly into the neighbor's backyard, and therefore staff recommended elimination of the balcony. With regards to neighborhood compatibility, he noted that the applicant has reduced the overall height of the proposed addition by 2 feet. He stated that staff felt that this helped reduce the bulk and mass of the house and made it more compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood and continued the terraced appearance of neighborhood. With these changes, staff is recommending approval of the proposed application. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify where the horizon line is when looking out the window of the neighbor's home. Associate Planner Schonborn indicated on the photograph where staff estimated the horizon line to be located. Vice Chairman Knight noted that the front yard setback is 15 feet, and asked if this was common in the neighborhood. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that a 15 -foot setback was seen throughout the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Knight noted that there are several two-story homes on Via Victoria and asked if homes on Via Victoria were included in the neighborhood compatibility comparison. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that homes on Via Victoria were not included when looking at neighborhood compatibility, as staff felt that the homes on Berry Hill were sufficient and that there is a topographical change between Berry Hill and Via Victoria, and staff did not think there was a connection with those homes and this neighborhood. Commissioner Karp asked staff if there will be a soils test before building the addition to ensure the safety of the neighbors below the applicant's home. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 5 Associate Planner Schonborn explained the Building and Safety Department would send the City Geologist to the site to determine if a soils and/or geology report would be necessary. Commissioner Perestam asked if there is a current plan that reflects the elimination of the balcony. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that the plan before the Commission reflects the reduced ridge height but does not reflect the elimination of the balcony or the configuration of the rear facing windows. Commissioner Gerstner noted that this residence was one of the larger residences in the neighborhood and after the addition would be even larger. He also felt that the addition would significantly change the apparent size of the house. He asked staff to explain how staff made their finding of neighborhood compatibility. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that staff not only looks at structure size but other factors as well. He acknowledged the house was large, however staff felt that due to the location and the resulting height not being apparent, it mitigates many of the impacts in regards to structure size. He noted that there are many homes in the neighborhood which are smaller in terms of square footage, however their designs create bulk and mass, which appears larger from the street than the applicant's home. Director/Secretary Rojas added that this was not an easy application for staff. He explained that lowering the height of the addition, and because the size of the addition is modest, only being 750 square feet, combined with the fact that the addition is away from the front facade, allowed staff to make the findings and recommend approval of the project. Chairman Tetreault noted that Mr. McCaskill has submitted a letter that questions many of staff's findings in regards to view analysis done from his home. He asked staff to comment on the points brought up in the letter. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Guidelines are very explicit in how view determinations are to be made, and per the Guidelines, staff was to make view determinations standing from the kitchen window. He acknowledged that when looking at the pictures the horizon is faint, however the horizon could be seen from the site, and the existing residence on the applicant's property appears higher than the horizon line. He acknowledged that there could be different conclusions if standing in a different room or standing a foot higher or lower, however based on this photo on this particular day, these are the conclusions made by staff. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Donald Kwak 7264 Berry Hill (applicant) distributed photographs to the Planning Commission, and explained that in those photographs there are three-dimensional Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 6 renditions of what the home would look like after the proposed addition is completed. He felt that he was compliant with the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines, and where he has received feedback he tried to implement the suggestions as best as possible. He did not think there was an "us versus them" mentality and was very open to working with the neighbors. He felt that once the addition was complete, it would maintain the terraced look of the neighborhood and would not tower over the other homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Karp requested a recess to be allowed time to read the information distributed by the applicant. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:20 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:35 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) Mr. McCaskill 7249 Berry Hill Drive stated he was with a group of concerned neighbors who decided to make the best use of the allotted time by having three principle speakers each address a specific aspect of their objections to the height variation and that he will address the issue of view. He stated that he would like to argue three points: that he does have a view, the view he has is of considerable value to his family, and that by granting the height variation his view would be significantly impaired. He displayed several photographs which illustrated the views from his daughter's bedroom, the view from the master bedroom, and the view from the kitchen. He felt that the addition would cause a significant negative impact to his view, approximately 35 percent. He also displayed a picture taken from the kitchen window with the horizon line enhanced for clarity, and to show what portion of that view would be obstructed by the proposed addition. The next slide shown by Mr. McCaskill was to prepare to demonstrate how the McCaskills would still have a view, even if the highest ridgeline of the existing structure were to be at the 16 -foot level. Mr. McCaskill stated that if the Planning Commission grants this proposed height variation his family will loose a significant portion of their view. He rioted that he did not have a large view, but treasure the view they have. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the proposed height variation. Commissioner Gerstner felt that from this presentation and the one presented by staff the main concern was the location of the horizon line, and asked Mr. McCaskill if that was correct. Mr. McCaskill agreed, noting that part of the problem was the overcast weather and staff's difficulty of actually seeing the horizon line. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 7 Chairman Tetreault noted that when he visited the site he was not able to see the horizon, and asked Mr. McCaskill if the horizon line he penned in was where he believed it to be, from living in the house for six years. Mr. McCaskill stated the line on the photograph represented where the horizon line was located. Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to display their picture taken from the kitchen window with the horizon line drawn in, and asked Mr. McCaskill to try to explain the discrepancy of the horizon line in the two pictures. Mr. McCaskill noted that the horizon line in staffs picture is much lower and felt that staff may have drawn in the line at the haze line. Commissioner Perestam noted that Mr. McCaskill had stated he is representing a group of neighbors who have concerns about the addition, and asked if any of these neighbors had view impacts from their homes. Mr. McCaskill stated that he did not think the view impacts from the neighbors' homes would be considered official views as defined by the City. Alan Young 7256 Berry Hill Drive stated he lives next door to the applicant and was before the Planning Commission to voice his strong opposition to the proposed addition. He stated that he will focus his time on the issues of privacy, however he noted that he is in complete agreement with the objections presented by Mr. McCaskill and Mr. Slusser. He stated that the proposed second story is a massive addition located in close proximity to and looming over his back yard. He noted that the addition may not look massive from the street, but it is very massive from his back yard. He stated that it's windows and doors provide close up views of areas from which he deserves privacy. He explained that the current single story structure upon which the proposed addition is to be built is not intrusive, as the grade is lower and shrubbery and a fence screen much of the home. He felt that staffs recommendation to remove the balcony was a step in the right direction, but he did not feel it was enough and does not address what is to replace it. He stated that a person standing in the second story opening made by the doors can lean out very slightly and have an unrestricted view of his backyard and part of the patio. Mr. Young also objected to the loss of his privacy from the applicant's proposed bathroom window. He noted that the bottom of the window is 5'3" above the floor, and staff feels the window is too high to be looked from, however he disagrees. He noted that frosted glass may alleviate his objections, however it does not take into account the times the window is open, which will allow an obstructed view of his back yard, patio, and a portion of the living room. He further objected to the sliding glass window on the corner of the wall. He explained that from that window one would have an unobstructed view of his back yard, patio, and large portion of his living room. For these reasons, he was strongly opposed to the proposed addition and urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 8 Robert Slusser 7270 Berry Hill Drive stated that he would be addressing the issue of neighborhood compatibility. He felt that the ambiance designed into this neighborhood through the style and placement of homes by the original developer is excellent. He disagreed with the statement that the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. He noted a statement in the staff report which says the proposed project includes a two-story design which is not common in the neighborhood. He explained that the split level homes on the south west side of the street have been confined to the steeper portions of the hill so that they fit in very well with the contours of the land and ensure they do not interfere with or block views from the residences above. He stated that the lesser sloped portion of the street, where he and the applicant reside, have only single story homes. He stated that the completed house will be the largest house in the neighborhood, over 1 % times larger than the average size of houses in the neighborhood. He felt that the second story addition will be very prominent from the street and very obviously out of place. He felt that if the Planning Commission approves this Height Variation, the precedence will be devastating to the neighborhood. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the proposed addition and help preserve the well-designed and cherished neighborhood. Michael O'Sullivan 30466 Via Cambron, felt his home was most severely impacted by the over development on the subject property, and will be even more impacted by the addition of the proposed second story. He did not think the staff report addressed how the proposed addition would look from Via Cambron or his property. He asked if any of the Commissioners had the opportunity to visit his property to view the impact of the addition from his property. He explained that the existing deck on the property is a large problem for him and the proposed addition will only add to the mass. He stated that he would like to see incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, mitigating measures regarding the deck, such as planting trees and acoustical solutions. He addressed the letter from the City Attorney regarding the deck and felt that many of her comments are misleading. He noted the City Attorney characterizes the height compliance of the deck to be minor, being at 13 feet rather than 12 feet. Secondly, the letter states the deck has not been modified since the original construction. He stated that this incorrect, as the railing has been replaced, without a permit, increasing the height by an additional foot. He noted that lighting has been added and the deck has been painted a glaring white. He asked that the Height Variation application be modified to incorporate mitigations to the deck, and if that was done he would have no objections to the proposed addition. Vice Chairman Knight noted that the deck is not before the Planning Commission, and asked if there was anything specific about the second story addition that he had objections to. Mr. O'Sullivan stated that the house is very massive and looks down onto his property. He felt that could be mitigated by planting large trees to screen the area. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 9 Chairman Tetreault noted that Mr. O'Sullivan brings up the question of whether or not the existing deck is code compliant, and asked if the compliance of the deck is subject to the analysis done by staff. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the deck is not subject to the analysis done by staff, as staff is looking at the proposed structure itself. Chairman Tetreault asked if the approval of this proposed height variation be subject to bringing the deck into compliance, or does the deck have no nexus to the project. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the deck has no nexus to the proposed project, however it raises the question of what to do when there is a non-compliant structure or code violation on a property. He explained that Mr. O'Sullivan has brought up the issue of the compliance of the deck before the City Council, and the City Council took no action. He stated that the City Attorney has reviewed the situation with the deck and determined that the deck is not a code violation. He read from the City Attorney's letter, which stated there is no appropriate basis for the staff to take action to remove or modify the deck. Therefore, the City considers the issue of the deck closed. Commissioner Karp asked staff if they considered bulk and mass, not only from the front yard of the residence, but also from the rear yard. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff looked at the proposed addition not only from Berry Hill Drive, but also from Via Cambron. He stated that the silhouette was barely visible from Via Cambron. Mr. O'Sullivan strongly disagreed, stating the silhouette was very visible from his property. Barbara O'Sullivan 30466 Via Cambron stated she submitted a letter to staff regarding this proposed project that was not acknowledged by staff. She noted it is true that she has been concerned with both the visual and acoustical impacts of the existing deck, however this is not her only concern. She made the point that if the height variation is granted, the visual impact of the total structure will be greatly increased. She stated that this house can be seen from Via Cambron. She stated that she invited staff to visit her property to view the silhouette, and does not know if staff bothered to come up the driveway, as it would make a difference. Finally, she did not think staff characterized what was said in the City Attorney's letter correctly, and urged the Planning Commission to read the letter themselves. Mr. Kwak (in rebuttal) stated that in regards to the issues of privacy, he would not object to replacing the second story doors with windows and would frost the bathroom windows. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he did not understand the comment that most of the homes are single story, noting that his house is surrounded by split- level homes. He understood and empathized with the O'Sullivan's concerns, but noted that the deck is a permitted structure. He was unsettled about all of the concerns Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 10 raised, and noted that all of the speakers had his contact information, including his cell phone number. He felt that if these concerns had been brought directly to his attention perhaps a solution that was more amenable to more people. However, not realizing the objections, he has pressed forward and invested a lot of time and money to reach this point. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff what the current lot coverage is on the subject property. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that one of the issues the O'Sullivans continue to raise is the legality of the existing deck, and a lot of time has been expended by himself and the City Attorney addressing the issues, one being lot coverage. He explained that staff and the City Attorney concluded that the lot coverage was over the allowed maximum for the lot. He read from the City Attorney's letter, which stated that even though the construction of the deck does deviate from the approved site plan and the City's lot coverage requirement, the City Attorney concurred with the Director's determination that the condition of the deck does not provide a basis for a code enforcement action by the City and should not prevent the owner of that property from applying for other approvals from the City. Commissioner Karp asked why this application is before the Planning Commission if the lot coverage on the property has already been exceeded. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that this addition will not add any more lot coverage to the property. Vice Chairman Knight noted the Young's felt the two bathroom windows also created a privacy infringement, and asked staffs opinion on the windows. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff did not feel there would be a privacy infringement, as the two windows are in a bathtub and shower area. Commissioner Gerstner stated that this is an application for a variance and as a variance there are several issues that apply. He felt that if there is a property that is already not in compliance in terms of lot coverage, since this is an application to increase the size of the house, the issue of lot coverage is in play and is something that the Planning Commission can comment on. It was his hope that if someone was proposing to do something of this scale, they reasonably bring the rest of the property into compliance with the Code. In regards to mass, he felt that from the property below the mass of the structure is greatly affected by the deck. He stated that while he may not have seen a nexus between the deck and the view issue that was before the Planning Commission some months ago, he did see a nexus between this application and other code compliant issues. He stated he would be hesitant to increase the size of the house when the lot coverage was already greater than allowed by the City. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Gerstner was also concerned with the inability to accurately locate the horizon line, noting that when he was at the site it was not a clear day and he was not able to locate the horizon. He felt that was important to clarify before he could make a decision. He also added that the privacy issues were not as strong a concern for him. Commissioner Perestam felt that the applicant was receptive to changes to help with the privacy issues of his neighbor. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he felt that there are homes in the neighborhood that have more height and bulk than this proposal, and therefore he did not have an issue with neighborhood compatibility. He was concerned, however, with lot coverage. He stated that he was uncertain if this proposed addition would open the door to the entire City to direct the applicant to do something about the deck. Finally, regarding the view, he noted that there is currently foliage blocking a portion of the view. He felt it was extremely important to determine where the horizon line is before a decision can be made. Commissioner Karp noted that the applicant had commented that he had not heard many of the concerns from his neighbors, and wondered if it might be best to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant and his neighbors to meet and discuss the proposed addition and find some better solutions to the problems. Vice Chairman Knight stated he was not concerned about the lot coverage, as the deck is considered existing non -conforming and there is no additional lot coverage added by this proposed addition. He felt that if the applicant were adding additional footprint with an addition he might have a different opinion. He felt that with the elimination of the second story deck and the changes to the windows he felt that privacy concerns would be mitigated to the neighbors next door. With regards to the bulk and mass, he did not find the proposed addition completely out of line with the neighborhood, however he did feel it was marginal. He too was concerned about the confusion of where the horizon line is located, and in all fairness to the neighbor, he felt that issue should be clarified. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the Code uses a combination of lot coverage, setbacks, and neighborhood compatibility to create within the City the open space and comparable scale. He felt that these are linked together forever, as they are used in combination. He understood the issues of the deck, however he felt that the deck takes the lot coverage of the property over the allowable and is larger than decks are allowed to be. He stated that it is debatable whether the deck is only one foot or possibly four feet higher than the maximum allowable. Therefore, if lot coverage and neighborhood compatibility are used to define the scale and open space, he could hardly increase the mass and size of the house while at the same time not considering all of the tools that control that. He felt that if this application were for an interior renovation or some small addition he would probably not have a concern, however this proposal affects things that lot coverage controls. He noted that he was not saying that this addition could not be built, but rather a reasonable solution to the lot coverage should be considered as part of this application to bring the house into compliance. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 12 Chairman Tetreault felt the applicant has worked hard to consider and address the issues of the neighbors. He noted there are still some strong objections to the project, however. He felt the privacy issue has, to a large extent, been dealt with due to the concessions made by the applicant. Regarding the deck, he felt the City Attorney has thoroughly reviewed the issue and addressed the responsibility of the City as to whether or not it is appropriate to take any action on it, and he is not going to question that decision. He stated that he looks at the deck as being part of the existing property, and will look at it to the extent that it does or does not add to the apparent mass and bulk in neighborhood compatibility. He felt that the view issue is important and it is also very important to determine where the horizon line is truly located. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he noted that on the side of the street where the applicant resides there are no two-story homes, and felt that this was an issue with neighborhood compatibility. He felt that, until the horizon line is clarified, the proposed addition could impair a view and there would be a cumulative impact if this type of addition were approved on other properties on the same side of the street. He therefore did not feel that he could support the project at this time. Commissioner Gerstner asked if it would be possible to continue the item to allow for a clearer day to determine the horizon line. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Permit Streamlining deadline is July 12th, and if continued past that date an extension will be required from the applicant. Chairman Tetreault asked if this item could be agendized for the next Planning Commission meeting, in hopes that there will be a clear day in the next two weeks. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the item could be put on the next Planning Commission agenda if the purpose is solely to allow the Commissioners another opportunity to visit the McCaskill property on a clear day. However, if the item is continued and there is a need for further analysis or action, the item will need to be continued to a future date. Commissioner Karp felt that two weeks was not enough time to allow the applicant and his neighbor's time to discuss the issues among themselves and try to work out some of the issues. Commissioner Karp moved to continue the public hearing to the first meeting in July, subject to the applicant granting an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing to discuss an extension with the applicant. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the deadline is July 12th, and therefore an extension would not be needed unless a decision is not reached at the July 12th meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Kwak stated that he has put a lot of effort and money into this proposal, and is not yet living in the home. He stated that his plan had been to perform the renovation as soon as possible so he could move his family into the home. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam stated that at the next meeting he would like staff to clarify the issue of lot coverage and if it should be a discussion item when discussing the proposed addition. He discussed neighborhood compatibility and did not know how the applicant could modify the plans without redesigning the entire addition. He felt that there could be minor modifications to the windows and rear area, however he did not think that would address neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Gerstner requested staff discuss with the City Attorney whether or not the Planning Commission can condition anything regarding lot coverage based on the application. He asked the applicant to provide a lot coverage calculation and to show the Planning Commission, to scale, how much area would need to be removed from the coverage. He felt that when something is quantified it is easier to make a better judgment. He also asked staff to assist the Planning Commission on the determination of the horizon, noting that the exact height one stands and how far from the window one is comes into play when determining the horizon. He did not think it would be productive for each of the Planning Commissioners to visit the site and stand at a slightly different location with the result of seven different opinions on the horizon line. Vice Chairman Knight requested that staff also try to get one very clear picture of the horizon line to assist the Planning Commission in their decision. Chairman Tetreault noted that his concern was more with neighborhood compatibility and the second story addition, and whatever the results of the view issues are, he still could not support the project because of neighborhood compatibility. He questioned if other Planning Commissioners had the same feeling, and if so, would it be necessary to continue the item to a future meeting. Vice Chairman Knight stated that he had not made his decision on neighborhood compatibility, and asked the Chairman to articulate his concerns. Chairman Tetreault explained that this area of Berry Hill Drive consistently is comprised of split level homes on the steeper portions of the street, where there are often times bedrooms over garages. He noted that, because of the angle of the house, the entrance is often at the same level as that bedroom. He stated that when the street levels off, there are more single story homes. He felt that this addition adds a lot of bulk and mass to the house as well as a significant change to the neighborhood, which is a true two-story house. Chairman Tetreault asked, by a show of hands, how many Commissioners would reject this addition just by neighborhood compatibility standards. Two of the Commissioners Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 14 stated they would reject the project on neighborhood compatibility. Therefore, Chairman Tetreault felt it would be worthwhile to continue with the further view analysis. The motion to continue the public hearing to July 12th was approved, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS 4. Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 23 (Case No. Zon2004-00215: 2930 Vista del Mar Commissioner Perestam recused himself from the item, as he personally knows one of the people directly involved in the application. Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining that at the City Council hearing for the appeal the applicant stated that he would withdraw the request to revise the additional grading and increase in lot coverage, as they felt they could revise the slope of the driveway to allow it in a manner that would meet the approved lot coverage and the grading quantity. Further, the applicant stated that the revised driveway slope would address all of staffs concerns, the Commission's concerns, and the neighbor's concerns. Because of this the City Council remanded the revised driveway to the Planning Commission for consideration based on the new request. Mr. Blumenthal gave a brief overview of the new request for the driveway. He stated that staff is able to make all of the necessary findings can be made and recommends the Planning Commission approve the revision to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff what the amount of reduction to the walls is, and where that reduction would take place. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the as -built walls had a height of 7 feet at the upper corner and the revised plan shows a wall of approximately 3 1/2 feet. Vice Chairman Knight asked if the applicant will be taking out the driveway already built and re -leveling the driveway. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the applicant has already torn up the cement that was put down for the driveway, and they will be re -grading in the same location. Commissioner Karp asked if the neighbor has withdrawn their complaint because of this new revision. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated there is no opposition to the revised plan at this time. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 15 Nagy Bakhoum 3800 Pacific Coast Hwy, Torrance (applicant) stated that there has been some re -arranging and modifications to the lot coverage and mitigated some of the lot coverage down below the house so as not to not exceed the maximum lot coverage on the lot. He also noted that as part of the original conditions of approval a civil engineer will have to certify the lot coverage. He stated that he was available to answer any questions. Dwight Hanger 2938 Vista del Mar stated that the height of the wall has been reduced significantly and it really helped when the driveway was torn up and re -graded, as at that point it was evident how much the driveway could be graded down. He stated that he is now quite pleased with the revision, as is the other neighbor. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Knight felt this is a case where the system has worked, noting that when this first carne before the Planning Commission there was an unapproved driveway built that had a significant impact on the neighbor. He explained that the Planning Commission denied the project at the time, but over the course of time the applicant has worked with the neighbor to design a driveway and wall that appears to be a good solution and lessens the impact on the neighbor. Therefore, he was in favor of approving the project. Commissioner Karp felt that it is always better that the neighbors get together and resolve their issues rather than have the City force a decision upon them. He stated that he is in favor of approving the project. Chairman Tetreault agreed, stating that this is a better driveway design and is safer. He too was in favor of approving the project. Vice Chairman Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2005-29 thereby approving the revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 23 as presented by staff, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Perestam abstaining. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of May 24, 2005 Chairman Tetreault noted a typo on page 15 of the minutes. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt the minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of June 28, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 16 Vice Chairman Knight stated that he would be absent from the June 28th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.rn. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 17