Loading...
PC MINS 20070227 Approved March 27, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knight at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight Absent: Commissioner Perestam was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Principal Planner Mihranian, Senior Planner Schonborn, Assistant Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to hear Agenda Item No. 3 after Agenda item No. 5. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed one letter for Agenda Item No. 1, two letters for Agenda Item No. 2, two letters for Agenda Item No. 3, and two letters for Agenda Item No. 4, reported that at their February 20, 2007 City Council meeting the City Council denied the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the reconstructed house at 58 Avenida Corona and continued the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the new residence on Grandpoint Lane. Vice Chairman Gerstner reported that he spoke to the applicant on Agenda Item 2, Commissioner Lewis spoke to the architect on Agenda Item No. 5, and Chairman Knight spoke to a nearby resident for Agenda Item No. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation Permit (ZON2006-00240): 4249 Dauntless Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She stated staff was able to make the necessary findings, as was recommending approval of the Height Variation. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Jure Sestich (architect for project) explained the history and scope of the project. He stated that the previous plan had a maximum height of 25 feet, however it blocked some views, and keeping the house at 17 feet in height prevented any views from the neighboring properties from being obstructed. He stated that he was available for questions. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Sestich if it were possible to lower the proposed addition to 16 feet. Mr. Sestich explained that lowering the addition to 16 feet in height would not give any head room in the room directly below the proposed gable. Stan Finka 4249 Dauntless Drive (property owner) explained that the two most exciting parts of the proposed addition are the 472 square feet over the garage and the kitchen area. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project as presented. Coral Netal 4231 Dauntless Drive expressed her support for the project. Brad Dennis 32202 Avenger Place was also in favor of the project and felt it would help property values in the neighborhood. Pam Geraghty 4244 Dauntless Drive stated she is in favor of the proposed project, and feels it will aesthetically improve the neighborhood. Kim Golden 4306 Dauntless Drive supported the project. David Kuntzman 4257 Dauntless Drive stated he objects to the proposed 17-foot height of this project over the garage, as it impacts his property. He felt this would be precedent setting, as all of the other garages in the neighborhood are single story. He noted that his addition over the garage was done in the 1960's before incorporation, and part of the reason the City incorporated was to resolve some of the impacts that have occurred under the County regulations. He felt approving the 17-foot addition would cause Height Variation requests all up and down Dauntless Drive and have a large impact on the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 2 Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Kuntzman how the current project would negatively impact his property. Mr. Kuntzman answered that original proposal of 22 feet in height which would have removed his view out of the family room. He stated that the reduction to 17 feet has returned, for the most part, the openness of his family room. Jure Sestich (in rebuttal) did not think this was a precedent setting proposal, and was only trying to enhance the existing house. He stated that there will be a 20-foot setback between the applicant's house and the neighbor's house. He also noted that the existing house behind the garage is currently taller than what is being proposed with this addition. He felt that if the addition could go slightly higher it would look better aesthetically and not block anyone's views. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked if the neighbor has a protected view from his second story window. Director Rojas answered that, assuming there is a living room on the lower level, the view from the second story window would not be a protected view. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with the staff report and supported staff's recommendations. He felt that applicant has made every effort to reduce the impact of the proposed addition on all neighbors, and did not think this proposed addition would set a precedent in the neighborhood, as any application before the Planning Commission will be considered on its own merits. Commissioner Karp also supported staff's recommendations, noting that Mr. Kuntzman does not appear to have any by right view from his second story window. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated he was able to make all of the necessary findings to approve the proposed project, and therefore supported the staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the proposed addition blends very well into the existing residence, noting that this is not the typical addition over an existing garage. He supported staff's recommendation. Commissioner Lewis supported the project, and was very pleased with the modesty of the design. Chairman Knight agreed that the design is very modest, and noted that he too will usually look at an addition over an existing garage very carefully. He stated that he was able to make all of the findings and was in support of the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 3 Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-13 thereby approving the Height Variation as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). 2. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, and Variance (Case No. ZON2006- 00522): 3444 Gulfcrest Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various permits. She explained that staff was not able to make the findings necessary to approve the Grading Permit and Variance application, and was therefore recommending the Planning Commission deny the project as presented. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff if their major objections were the construction over or around a 35 percent or greater slope and the amount of grading, Assistant Planner Kim answered that was correct. Commissioner Karp noted that the staff report stated staff would be supportive of an alternative, and asked staff what types of alternatives they would suggest. Assistant Planner Kim stated that if the proposed addition were modified to where the Variance would no longer be necessary and only proposed grading necessary for the proposed addition then staff might be able to support the project. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Criss Gunderson 2024 Via Pacheco, PVE, (architect) explained that this down slope addition is the one he and the owners felt would be best for the general neighborhood at large. He stated that the extreme slope in question is not a natural slope and was created so that the properties below the applicant's property could be developed. He stated that the grading requested is certainly nothing that is hazardous, as confirmed by his geological report. He noted that he will be manipulating an extreme slope that has been artificially created and the resulting area will be less obvious to the community and will be an overall improvement to the property. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Gunderson if he was aware of any similar projects in the City that have been approved. Mr. Gunderson could not answer that question. Tim Wahl 3444 Gulfcrest Drive (applicant) stated he bought the property because of the size of the lot and the phenomenal view. He stated it was very important to him to mitigate the impact of his proposed addition to the neighbors and has done everything possible to do so. He felt his request is reasonable and not extreme and requested the Planning Commission consider the facts and approves the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 4 Jody Council 3577 Heroic Drive supported the project and felt it was a very creative use of the property. He noted there is no impact from the street and that he looks up the applicant's slope and was very pleased with the design of the project. Mike Marelli 31339 Floweridge Drive was also supportive of the project and appreciated the effort to minimize any view impact to the houses above the residence. He also asked the Planning Commission to approve the proposed project. Craig Mueller 3559 Seaglen Drive was pleased to see the mass and bulk of the proposed project moved down the slope to minimize the impact to the neighbors. Regarding the findings for the Variance, he felt there were extraordinary circumstances, as the homes in the neighborhood have views and this home is pushed to the edge and to build a second story would block some of the views of the neighbors. In terms of the natural terrain, he felt that some modifications may easily mitigate that concern of staff. He understood the concern regarding the amount of grading, however he noted that in this circumstance grading down the slope would be a good thing rather than encouraging a second story addition. Gary Randall 3512 Heroic Drive stated his property is just below the extreme slope on the applicant's property. He explained that he has concerns in regards to the grading on the extreme slope and any issues that may result from that grading. He felt that shifting the project to the south would take the project off of the extreme slope, and he felt there was plenty of room on the property to do so. He stated that he was not opposed to the project, in general, only with the grading on the extreme slope. Criss Gunderson (in rebuttal) appreciated the support of the neighbors and noted that there were no speakers against the project. He explained that in the area of the extreme slope the plan was to remove material and taking a 22-foot slope and reducing it to 10 feet. He felt that if anything, this would mitigate potential problems with the slope. He also explained that on the south side of the property there is another extreme slope with it's own set of limitations and problems. He asked the Planning Commission to support the proposed project. Tim Wahl added that staff had suggested adding on to the east or south end of the property, however he noted that his immediate neighbors enjoy a view out of the side of their lot and building in this location would impact that view. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff about the General Plan and changing of the natural topography. He stated that the architect had indicated this is not a natural slope, but rather was created when the tract was built. He asked staff how the City would deal with a situation like this. Director Rojas answered that the General Plan talks about protection of natural slopes as well as protection to slopes in terms of minimizing grading. He explained that the Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 5 City implements this by trying to minimize grading on slopes. He noted that there have been situations where the City has allowed grading on certain slopes, but the degree of grading on this particular application is what is causing staff's concern. Commissioner Lewis agreed with the staff's recommendations, stating that he did not see any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that are unique to this property. Commissioner Tetreault also did not see an extraordinary situation on this property, as the way the property is laid out is typical on view lots in the City. He stated that everyone would like to have a big backyard and a fantastic view, but these are trade- offs, and the trade off on this property, as well as hundreds of others throughout the City, has been no backyard and having a maximum view right to the edge. He felt that staff's recommendation to allow the project, but not the play area beyond was a good recommendation which he supported. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that the City encourages residents to increase the size of their homes or do what they want to do with their property without impacting their neighbors. He felt this was a very creative solution to a problem staff runs into frequently, which is how do you expand a house and not block the neighbors view. He felt that the architect has been creative in finding ways to accomplish the primary guidelines in what the City would like to see a resident accomplish. In regards to building over the extreme slope, he noted that the building area will be on only a small sliver of the existing extreme slope, and he felt that grading into that area will be safe. In regards to the changing of the topography for the play area, he respect the fact that the applicant tried to keep the general slope the same and did not see it as a large change in the general character of the slope, however it is moving a large quantity of dirt. However, he noted that in doing the addition he would much rather see the dirt being removed used on the property in a creative way rather than hauled away in trucks. He felt that he could make the finding of extraordinary circumstances in that the applicant is trying to find an extraordinary solution to developing this home. Commissioner Karp felt that a humanistic approach and some equity should apply rather than a cold interpretation of the Code. He did not think this proposed project would have any adverse affect to the City, the neighbors, or the property. He stated he was in favor of the project and the Planning Commission should approve the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that there have been no objections from the neighbors, and the objective pluses are the kind that outweigh a subjective finding as to whether or not there are or are not extraordinary circumstances sufficient enough to approve the Variance. He felt that he could make the findings he needed to make to support the project. Chairman Knight agreed with staff's analysis and recommendations, and he could not support the findings to approve the Variance. He noted, however, that he could envision this project coming back before the Planning Commission looking very similar in terms of all of its components but without the issues with the grading. Planning commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 6 Commissioner Karp moved to reject staff's recommendations and to approve the project as proposed, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that changes could be made to this project that may alleviate some of the concerns of the Commissioners. He felt this matter should be continued to allow the architect and applicant to modify the project. Commissioner Lewis stated that he could not support the current motion, however he could support a continuance to allow the applicant an opportunity to modify the existing project. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved a substitute motion to allow the project to be continued to May 22, 2007, subject to the applicant agreeing to a 90-day extension, in order to allow the applicant to present modifications to the proposal consistent with the comments made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Karp and Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed to the substitute motion. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Chairman Knight asked Mr. Gunderson if he would be willing to grant a 90-day extension as per the Permit Streamling Act. Mr. Gunderson answered that he would grant the 90-day extension Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault noted that his concerns with the project were the amount of grading on the extreme slope, and if that could somehow be mitigated he could possibly support the project. Chairman Knight stated that he could support a continuance only if the concerns raised by staff are completely addressed, as he supported staff's concerns. Director Rojas noted that if the applicant proposes a project that does not require a Variance and is less than 1,000 cubic yards of grading, it will not come back to the Planning Commission. The motion to continue the public hearing to May 22, 2007 was approved, (6-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:40 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 4. _Appeal of Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00243: 11 Clipper Road It was noted that Commissioner Tetreault was excused from the rest of the meeting. Assistant Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the issues brought forward in the appeal. She stated that staff felt the appellants introduced no new evidence to warrant a change in the Director's decision and was therefore recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's conditional approval of the Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. Commissioner Karp noted that there is a request for an easement for drainage, and asked if that easement has been obtained. Assistant Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant has indicated he is in the process of negotiating obtaining that easement. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Dan Bridleman 9 Clipper Road (appellant) stated that moving the garage to the other side of the property would eliminate all of his and his neighbor's concerns. He explained that with the current placement of the garage.the primary view from his house is completely eliminated. He also felt that the current placement of the garage is not compatible with the neighborhood, as it dominates the street view of the residence. He stated that the current placement of the garage will decrease the value of his property because of the loss of his view. He was concerned that during this process, not one time did he or a neighbor see a plan of the proposed residence so that they could express their concerns to the architect. Stasys Petravicius 18 Seacove Drive was concerned with the loss of his neighbor's view and was also concerned that none of the neighbors were notified by the applicant and given a chance to review the proposed residence prior to submittal. He agreed that moving the garage to the other side of the property would allow the neighbor to keep his view. Elizabeth Moore 29 Seacove Drive (representing the architectural committee of the West Portuguese Bend HOA) stated that they submitted concerns regarding the view obstruction and the setback. She explained that the committee sent a letter to the architect expressing these concerns, however there was never a response to the letter. Commissioner Karp asked Ms. Moore if she was aware that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to enforce private CC&Rs. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 8 Ms. Moore answered that she was aware of that. Terry Ostrom (applicant) stated that he spoke with both of his adjacent neighbors about the proposed construction and is trying to do everything according to the Codes of the City. Commissioner Lewis asked if any consideration had been given to moving the garage to the other side of the property. Mr. Ostrom answered that he did take that into consideration but was told that the only way he could do so at this point was to re-file, and he was running out of money and time. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Ostrom, if he weren't already a year into this application process, would he consider moving the garage to the other side of the property. Mr. Ostrom answered that it would be something he would be very willing to consider. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Ostrom if he would object to the Planning Commission continuing the public hearing to a date in the future to allow him to propose modifications to the proposed residence. Mr. Ostrom answered that a continuance would be something he would definitely consider. Emil Sunjara 928 Hamilton Ave #13 San Pedro (architect) explained that the reason the garage is located in the present location is to minimize the amount of grading necessary for construction of the residence and to allow for drainage. He explained that putting the garage on the other side will necessitate redesigning the drainage on the property. Vice Chairman Gerstner understood the problems with grading and drainage if the garage is moved to the other side of the property, but asked Mr. Sunjara if these problems are solvable. Mr. Sunjara answered that these problems are solvable. Mr. Bridleman (in rebuttal) felt that if the change in the location of the garage is made he would be 100 percent supportive of the project, and he was very willing to work with the applicant and help financially, if necessary, to help reduce the amount of time that it would take to redesign the location of the garage. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff what the City process would involve if the proposed residence is redesigned to move the garage to the other side of the property. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 9 Assistant Planner Mikhail explained that the applicant would have to go through the neighborhood compatibility process again and there would also be the NPDES drainage requirements that would have to be reviewed. She stated that the NPDES process of approval took quite a bit of time for its initial approval. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked why the review time was so long, was it the time used for the applicant to design it or for the City to review it. Assistant Planner Mikhail answered that the original submittal was not acceptable and it took quite awhile and several submittals for a design that was ultimately approved. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if one of the considerations that the Planning Commission is allowed to make is whether or not the applicant has made all efforts to mitigate the impact on his neighbors. Director Rojas answered that is not a finding for this application, and the only finding before the Planning Commission is neighborhood compatibility. Chairman Knight asked if most of the properties have a 25-foot front setback. Assistant Planner Mikhail answered that the setbacks in the 20 closest homes have quite a great range, from less than 20 feet to over 40 feet, and there is no particular pattern. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he did not want to vote on this application this evening, as he felt the applicant and neighbor might be able to work together to reach a compromise. Commissioner Karp agreed, and was pleasantly surprised that the appellant was willing to pay some of the architectural fees in regards to the redesign. Vice Chairman Gerstner also agreed, and felt that there is a solution that won't be an extraordinary hardship and will satisfy both parties. Commissioner Lewis stated that if he had to vote this evening he would not be able to support the appeal, and he wanted to support the appeal. He therefore supported a continuance. Chairman Knight stated he would like to support a resolution that would be amenable to both parties involved and would therefore support a continuance in the hopes the two parties can reach some type of agreement. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 10 5. Appeal of Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2005-00554): 30065 Via Victoria Principal Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, giving a background of the proposed development and the reason for the appeal by the two neighbors on Via Victoria. Commissioner Karp asked if the proposed driveway meets the current code standards. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the proposed driveway is at the maximum allowed by code, which is a 20 percent gradient. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the height of the silhouette in place complies with the conditions that were set in 2001. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that was correct and a certification is on file. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Hal Arafat 7231 Rue Godbout (appellant) felt that any subdivision built in the City must offer a tangible value to the City. He felt this project offers very minimal value to the City, and borders on the extreme in regards to the size of the lots and the size of the homes, as well as the driveways. He also felt the grade of the street in relationship to the sidewalk is dangerous and did not feel that one could safely park their car here because it would sit at an unsafe angle. He discussed the slope of the driveway going to lot 13, which is at 20 percent. He stated that when this development was in the planning stages he was not noticed when there were public or neighborhood meetings. He stated his home is the most impacted from this development, and especially the house on lot 13. He added that he would have never supported building more than 10 homes in this development. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Arafat how it would benefit him or the neighborhood if the house on lot 13 were reduced in size. Mr. Arafat answered that a smaller, 2, 700 square foot house would be more compatible with the neighborhood and there would be less roof to block his view. Tim McElroy 30034 Via Victoria (appellant) stated that what was agreed to in a past meeting with staff was street level. He noted that the report states throughout that no structure or foliage will exceed street level, however there is also a reference to 400 feet, which is not street level. Regarding view arcs, when raising a structure 6 inches above street it has a tremendous impact on views, especially when sitting and not standing. He stated that when properties are set back you again lose the view arc. He noted that chimneys are sitting 3 feet above the roof, which blocks even more view. He felt that all four properties should be silhouetted together to gain the full impact of the potential view impact. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 11 Sandy McElroy 30034 Via Victoria explained that it was agreed, in good faith with the developer, to build thirteen homes even though it would make the area more densely populated. However, this was done with the understanding and agreement with the developer that their views truly would not be impaired. She stated that in reality these homes will be impacting a majority of their ocean view. Commissioner Karp asked Mrs. McElroy if the roof ridgeline were lowered two feet, would that meet her concerns. Mrs. McElroy answered that dropping the roof two feet would probably help the view quite a bit. Rich Sittel 30020 Via Victoria pointed out that at the Planning Commission meeting in August 2001 where the project was approved, the driveways as proposed by the developer for lots 9, 10 and 13 were completely different than they appear on the current plans. He explained that by changing the driveway location it pushes the houses out to maximize the views and by doing so minimizes the views of the neighbors. He was concerned that any precedents set with the approval of the changes to lot 13 would then be applied to lots 9 and 10, which would further block his and his neighbors' views. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Sittel, as part of this appeal, what would be the suggestion on how to mitigate the potential problems these changes have made. Mr. Sittel answered that from his perspective the developer could lower the pads, re- orient the driveways to the way they were originally presented to be placed on the bottom of the lot, and re-orient the house closer to the street. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that there have been three revisions to the project tract and that Councilman Stern wanted to make sure that the structures in this development did not go beyond the 400-foot elevation mark regardless of revisions made to the pad levels. He also noted that chimneys are not protected by the view ordinance, as the height of the chimney is regulated by the Uniform Building Code, however a condition of approval is included that the height of the chimney must be at the minimum allowed by the Building Code. Gene Steiger 28802 Crestridge Drive stated he was the original owner of 30034 Via Victoria and showed a plan which he said was the one the neighbors were shown which shows the driveways at the rear of the lots. He also stated that the residents have always been told the street level is at 400 feet, and felt that there has been a major misunderstanding on that measurement and that the neighbors have been misled on the street level and the ridgeline. He felt the solution was to lower the pad another foot. Ben Cauthen 3035 Kashiwa Street, Torrance (Ashai Design)explained that his office took over for the original architect and therefore was not present during the original Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 12 discussions for the project. He stated that from the survey, the agreement, and the civil certification of ridge heights the proposed structure would not be exceeding 400 feet elevation approved per the tract conditions. He did not think that changing the driveways would help, as it would not change the location of the house. He noted that the driveways would be too steep if they were located at the back of the property or if the pad were lowered. Commissioner Karp asked if there was a possibility of lowering the ridgeline by one or two feet. Mr. Cauthen answered that he believes the ridgelines are as low as they can go, explaining that lowering the ridgelines would mean they wouldn't be able to achieve the proper drainage on the roof. Mr. Arafat (in rebuttal) stated that the function of the Planning Commission and City Council is to look at these projects from a human point of view and not the strict interpretation of the Code. He didn't feel staff wanted to even explore the possibility of moving the driveway and therefore moving the house forward, as well as lowering the pads. Mr. McElroy (in rebuttal) felt the solution to these problems is to drop the pads. He felt that chimneys are a structure and they should be regulated. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if dropping the pad elevations would create a bigger problem with the driveways. Mr. McElroy answered that the garage would have to be moved back to the middle of the home where it originally was located instead of the front of the home. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that originally there were eleven lots proposed and now there are thirteen. He asked to what extent the neighbor's cooperation was considered when increasing the number of lots to thirteen. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that originally the developer proposed fourteen lots. Staff raised concerns with the density and the final proposal that went before the public was thirteen lots. He stated there were concerns regarding density raised at the June 2001 Planning Commission meeting by the public and the Commission, however the number of lots was never reduced to eleven lots. Chairman Knight asked if there is a patio enclosure that is part of this plan. Principal Planner Mihranian answered there is a courtyard that is included in lot coverage calculations. He also noted that he has been informed there is a potential buyer for this lot and that buyer is interested in enclosing the courtyard, but stressed Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 13 that is not before the Planning Commission at this time, as no plans have been submitted to the City. Commissioner Karp asked staff if they felt if the house were to be built as initially recommended by staff with the houses and driveways on grade, if the appellants would have more of their views blocked than with this current proposal. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that was true. Commissioner Lewis felt that in 2001 there was a serious lack of meeting of the minds on this project. He referred to a August 14, 2001 staff report and past City Council minutes and stated that it was clear to him that when the tract map was approved the reason the City Council and Planning Commission adopted the 400 feet was because they believed that number resulted in no obstruction to the homes on Via Victoria. Therefore, he could not make the finding that the proposed residence complies with the City Council adopted tract condition that limits the structures height to a maximum of 400 feet. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed that there may have been a misunderstanding somewhere in the past with the City Council, Planning Commission, and definitely the neighbors. However, he noted it is hard to second-guess the understanding or misunderstanding of the City Council. He stated that there were many hours spent to set a specific set of guidelines for this one specific piece of property and those guidelines said that the elevation of the pad shall be no greater than a certain height and the elevation of the ridgeline shall be no greater than 400 feet. He did not think there was an adjustment that could be made at this meeting that would solve the problem and get to the point where there is no obstruction of the view, as that would mean significantly changing the pad elevation, the height of the structure or the maximum allowable square footage. He did feel, however, that the City Council could do this if there was some misunderstanding or discrepancy. Because he could not make a subtle adjustment to get to where the neighbors wanted to be and he did not feel he could make a significant change to the code for that specific piece of property, he felt he should deny the appeal and if the appellants chose to take the appeal to the City Council, the City Council can change its decision. Commissioner Karp agreed, and did not want to second-guess the City Council by making certain assumptions. He also felt that the appellants should be happy with what is currently being proposed, as it affords a much better view than what was originally submitted and recommended by staff. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that there are three grounds for the appeal, the first two being the driveway grade and scale of the project, which meets Code and therefore he could not support. He felt the issue is the 400 feet and agreed that there has been a major misunderstanding in this issue. He explained that he has read all of the old staff reports and minutes and understands why there is a misunderstanding, as 400 feet and Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 14 street level are both used throughout. He also felt that this was a matter that will have to be decided by the City Council. Chairman Knight also agreed that there was some type of misunderstanding in the interpretation of the 400 feet and the street level. He too agreed that this was a matter to be decided by the City Council and therefore was inclined to deny the appeal. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2007-14 thereby upholding the Director's decision to conditionally approve the Site Plan Review as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (3-1-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting and Commissioner Ruttenberg abstaining. 3. Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 155 (Case No. ZON203-00086): 27501 Western Ave Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a history of development and grading at the site through the years, as well as the master plan for the cemetery. He explained the proposed revision to the Conditional Use Permit and the need for the extensive grading. He explained that staff was recommending the Planning, Commission open the public hearing, take testimony and discuss the merits of the project, then continue the public hearing to April 24t to take final action on the application. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Barry Boudreaux 2919 Wellbourne, Dallas Texas (applicant) stated that his architectural firm specializes in cemetery planning. He explained the current trends in cemetery planning and the types of internments. He stated he had made an effort to keep the new master plan consistent with the 1991 approved plan, however there were some things that needed to be changed. He explained that grading quantities are high but noted that when dirt is excavated for a grave and the extra soil is moved to a holding location, that is considered one movement of dirt. Then, when that dirt is moved from the holding location to use as backfill in another location that is considered another movement of dirt. He asked that the current stop work order be lifted so that some badly needed ground vaults can be put in and the daily operations of the cemetery won't have to cease. Regarding the CUP recommendations, he referred to Item 1(H) and asked that garden walls be allowed. He referred to Item 13 of the proposed Resolution and asked that some equipment be allowed to be stored near the internment sites. Finally he referred to Item 14 and asked that the wording regarding landscape pruning be changed to state that all landscape pruning would be stored properly in appropriate bins and disposed of in a proper manner. He also asked that the landscape plan for area 4 be limited to plants that exceed 42 inches in height. Chairman Knight asked Mr. Boudreaux how long he felt this master plan would service the cemetery. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 15 Mr. Boudreaux felt that this proposed master plan would service the cemetery for 60 to 70 years, based on the cremation rate catching up with the burial rate. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked what percentage of time there will be construction taking place at the cemetery during the next 5 to 10 years. Mr. Boudreaux answered that in the next 5 to 10 years the focus will be on the mausoleum in area 2, which should take approximately 8 to 12 months to complete. Further, based on the sales this cemetery does, there may be a new mausoleum program approximately every 3 to 5 years. Michael McClung 1896 Peninsula Verde Drive stated that several years ago during public hearings it was agreed that from the north wall to the north perimeter wall as identified on the aerial photograph on the screen, no structures were to be built above ground. He stated this was a compromise made between the cemetery and the neighbors to allow them to do other things throughout the cemetery. He noted that the cemetery was now requesting to build family plots all along that area. He noted that staff has recommended no building in that area, per a prior agreement, and he supported staff's recommendation. He noted that there was a request that the entire cemetery be open until 9 p.m. and requested that there be specific language that the cemetery have specific hours, possibly closing at dusk. Booth Tarkington1902 Peninsula Verde Drive agreed with the comments made by Mr. McClung. He explained that over the years with the grading at the cemetery he has lost his view of San Pedro and Long Beach, and asked staff and the Planning Commission to keep this in mind during their discussions. He asked that there be discussion on posting notices that no liquor or excessive noise be allowed in the cemetery. Barry Boudreaux (in rebuttal) stated that the cemetery does close at dusk and there are gates that do close at that time. He noted that there are written rules that does not allow alcohol in the cemetery and there is armed security at the site. Chairman Knight asked if there was anything in place regulating music in the cemetery. Mr. Boudreaux answered that there is no regulation regarding boom boxes and that language can be added to the rules. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Boudreaux if he was aware of any agreement regarding structures, as discussed by the two speakers. Mr. Boudreaux answered that he was not aware of any agreement, other than what is included in the 1991 Master Plan. John Resich (Green Hills) clarified that when all of the alternatives were being discussed in 1990 and 1991 Green Hills told the neighbors there would be no above Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 16 ground burials in that specific area, meaning no mausoleums or above ground crypts. He stated that they did not talk about or contemplate a garden wall being a structure. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. It being after midnight, Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue discussing this item solely for the purpose of choosing a date for the continuance of the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (5-0). Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to April 24, 2007, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS 6. Minutes of January 23, 2007 No action taken, automatically continued to the March 13, 2007 meeting. 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of March 13, 2007 No action taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:28 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 27,2007 Page 17