Loading...
PC MINS 19930608APPROVED U/7/93 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 1993 The adjourned meeting from May 25, 1993 was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds, Vice chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. Also present were Director of Environmental Services Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru and Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas and Kim Klopfenstein. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. SPECIAL REPORTS - COMMISSION Proposed Amendment to View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance Commissioner Clark presented a history of Proposition M, the View Restoration Permit Process, and Landscape Covenants. The Commission then proceeded to discuss the options, specifically citing the Via Campesina case as an example. Commissioner Clark asked if the Commission is willing to recommend that residents have an option between Site Vegetation Inspection or a View Covenant. Commissioner Mowlds stated that both options should be covered with covenants and that the property owners should have a choice between the two options. Chairman Katherman asked Commissioner Mowlds if a Covenant would be required in all cases. commissioner Mowlds responded yes. Chairman Katherman stated that he feels there is a need for a Covenant because the City wants the property owners to be on notice that they have agreed with the provisions of the Code dealing with view protection and restoration. He continued on to say whatever the process is, it needs to be paid for by application fees. Chairman Katherman stated that Staff should photograph the property after the vegetation is thinned to show, for the record, the restored view, which can be used in the future to determine to what degree the foliage owner must maintain the view. Commissioner Clark stated that the Site Vegetation Inspection is a reasonable alternative to requiring a property owner to cut their foliage to 161. Chairman Katherman responded that he was not suggesting a clearcut of 161. commissioner Clark commented that clearcutting to 161 is one of the options and is a current situation under the view covenant. Chairman Katherman stated that he feels that situation would be unreasonable. Commissioner Mowlds made a preliminary motion to suggest using two options: Option A - 161 or the height of the ridgeline per Development Code, option B - the thinning of mature trees every three years. If option B is filed, Staff must visit the site at the request of the affected adjacent property owner and determine if the thinning of the overgrown trees is warranted. The objecting party would pay for the cost of the review and the owner must pay for the thinning. All judgement would be based on the initial set of photographs that are maintained in the address file. Planning Administrator Petru commented that she can foresee a case where, at the time of building permit issuance, the resident doesn't have any foliage on his property exceeding 161, so they file Covenant A. Then the resident plants a tree and it grows up over the ridgeline and then they want Covenant B. The result is more view impairment then would occur if they are limited to Covenant A. Ms. Petru said that this was a potential situation that could undermine the intent of the Code. Commissioner Hayes asked if the trees aren't there and they are planted after Covenant A is recorded, she sees no reason to change that. They can plant trees that stay low. Commissioner Hayes continued to say she would be more concerned about the existing pine trees that cannot be chopped to 161, without killing the tree. Ms. Petru responded that her concern was, since the covenant runs with the land, that quite a bit of time could elapses and maybe in 10 years the resident will have a mature tree that wasn't there at the time the permit was originally issued and the landowner values that tree and does not want to remove it or trim it back to 161. Chairman Katherman responded that residents would understand the implications of the view covenant and would be made aware of the covenant since it would appear on the title to their property. Commissioner Lorenzen commented that this whole issue could be handled through Site Vegetation Inspection. Chairman Katherman responded that he wants everyone to agree to abide by the terms of the Ordinance, to minimize the possibility of litigation. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he was concerned about the cost of the administration of this process and asked what the Commission could do to modify the law. Chairman Katherman responded the Commission is not looking at the law, but at the way in which it is implemented. He continued to say that it was up to the City Council to deal with the equities of the law itself. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 2 Commissioner Clark stated that Staff's determination on the amount the foliage must be thinned should be appealable to the appropriate bodies, including the Planning Commission, through the normal appeal process. Director Bernard clarified that the Staff will follow the normal appeal process at that time. If the process changes in the future, Staff would follow the new process. Commissioner Xowlds moved, and Commissioner Hayes seconded, the motion to forward to the City Council a recommendation to amend the Guidelines to require a Covenant in all cases, but with a differentiation between two options: A. 161 or the ridgeline (per code) B. Thinning of mature trees a maximum of every three years. Cost should be shared by both property owners. Before obtaining a permit, the Staff must visit the site and determine if thinning is necessary. The property owner must pay for the thinning. Thereafter, the complainant must Pay for the Staff analysis and the landowner pays for the thinning. Staff's determination on the amount of thinning that is required should be appealable through the normal procedures. (7-0) The motion passed by acclamation. The adjourned regular meeting of May 25, 1993 was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of May 25, 1993 Commissioner Hayes moved, and Vice Chairman Byrd seconded, to approve the Minutes of May 25, 1993, as amended. B. P.C. Resolution No. 93-13; Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 68 -Revision B for an increase in the maximum ridge height at 11 Marguerite Drive (Burrell). C. P.C. Resolution No. 93-14; Approving Variance No. 353 for a 101 reduction in the required front yard setback at' 3110 Dianora Drive (Khoury). Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to approve Consent Calendar Items B and C. Notion carried. (7-0) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 3 I� w PUBLIC HEARING A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 773 -APPEAL; Mr. and Mrs. David Tabah (applicant), 3348 Corinna and Mr. Lawrence Clark (appellant), 3354 Corinna Drive. Commissioner Clark excused himself from the dais, thus removing himself from the decision-making process due to the fact that he is the appellant on the project. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas presented the Staff Report stating that Height Variation No. 773 was approved by the Acting Director of Environmental Services on April 6, 1993. During Staff's initial review of the original submittal, it was Staff's opinion that due to its configuration and scale, the addition would create a structure to massive, and thus out of character with the neighborhood. It was suggested by Staff that the applicant redesign the addition to address this concern. The applicant came back with the plans that are before the Commission this evening and it was Staff's opinion that sufficient modifications were made to alleviate Staff's concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility with the original design. The upper level was reduced in height, set back considerably from the street, and the front facade was articulated. Additionally, the applicant voluntarily removed a balcony along the west elevation, and truncated the other balcony at the rear of the house by completely eliminating that portion of the balcony that wrapped along the west elevation to voluntarily address the privacy concerns of the next-door neighbor (Mr. Clark). The revised project was subsequently conditionally approved, but the Acting Director's decision for Height Variation No. 773 was appealed by Mr. Lawrence Clark on April 21, 1993. Mr. de Freitas continued, stating that Mr. Clark expressed two areas of contention with regard to the approved height variation. First, it was his opinion that the project fails to meet the privacy standards of the neighborhood compatibility portion of Section 17.02.040. However, Staff felt the issue of privacy is not specifically included as a criteria for review or as a standard condition of approval for Height Variation requests. Therefore, Staff does not review such requests for invasion of privacy; and accordingly, it is Staff's position that the proposed second story addition as currently conditioned, complies with all of the current requirements of the Development Code. Staff also does not agree with appellant's second point that the project will not maintain the architectural style, i.e., "the design and apparent bulk of mass", of the neighborhood. It is Staff's opinion that the project would blend in with the neighborhood given the more aesthetically refined, softened, integrated design of the addition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 4 In conclusion, it is Staff's opinion that the modified project, satisfies all of the criteria set forth in Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code and therefore recommends that the Commission deny the appeal, thereby sustaining the Acting Director's decision to approve Height Variation No. 773 subject to conditions of approval. Commissioner Mowlds asked Assistant Planner de Freitas if the balcony on the side of the house shown on Plan A, where the master bedroom is located, is in the 5' setback. Assistant Planner de Freitas responded that the balcony in question extends 2' from the building wall of the addition, but maintains the 5' minimum setback. Mr. de Freitas further commented that a portion of the balcony has been eliminated in the modified plans. Chairman Katherman cited to Assistant Planner de Freitas, Height Variation No. 730 located at 5724 Scotwood, in which the Commission put a condition dealing with the privacy issue as part of the compatibility of the property. He felt there is some precedent for the Commission to deal with the privacy issue. Commissioner Hayes commented that she thinks the Commission has dealt with the issue of privacy on more than one case. Commissioner Alberio acknowledged that although the Commission has previously imposed conditions relative to privacy, he felt the Commission needed to consider this case on it's own merit. Chairman Katherman clarified that the Commission has tried to deal with the privacy issue, but it is difficult to include the issue as part of a neighborhood compatibility standard. Assistant Planner de Freitas commented that the Commission has found for the issue of privacy and in other cases has not upheld the claim of invasion of privacy. Chairman Katherman stated that photo #1 and #2 seemed to be taken from the perspective of the two windows in the master bedroom (which the appellant is most concerned with) and don't cover much of the appellant's backyard. Assistant Planner de Freitas confirmed Mr. Katherman's observation and commented that those photographs were taken from the roof. Mr. Lawrence Clark (appellant); 3354 Corinna Drive stated that he purchased his home in 1979 and the two principal reasons were spectacular view and backyard privacy. It is located -in the Mira Catalina tract which was built in the 1960s' as a single story ranch style tract development. At the time he bought the home he looked at other locations such as the nearby Mediterranean tract, which had two-storya homes and were ten years newer. While those PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 5 homes had the same views, they did have the kind of privacy which the Mira Catalina tract had. Mr. Clark continued to say that when Mr. and Mrs. Tabah informed him that they were going to remodel their home, Mr. Clark indicated to them that he had generally been supportive of modernization and remodel of homes within the tract and that he looked forward to viewing their plans. In February, when he had the opportunity to view the plans, he commefited to Mrs. Tabah of his concerns regarding the design of the project and the impact on his property. He stated his concern centered around the fact that since their homes have the minimum side yard setback of 5`1 closer than any of the other homes in the tract and making their two homes only about 10 1 apart. The proposed design of their home would literally put their house on top of him. Mr. Clark also stated that he was concerned about the balconies and windows on the second story, in or around their master bedroom suite. He continued to say that he doesn't want to prohibit his neighbors from remodeling, and also said that he was the only neighbor who commented that he supported their project, but the design remains a question. Mr. Clark said that he does not agree with points in the Staff Report. He contends that the Report takes liberties which are not traceable back to his letters. Mr. Clark claims that he has not stated specifically in his letters that there is a privacy criteria in Code Section 17.02.040. He said he has contended that there is a neighborhood compatibility issue. He feels that the home that the applicants are proposing to build will have a significant impact on his home and enjoyment of his property, particularly his backyard. He does not want to deny the Tabahs the opportunity to improve their property, but he believes that there is a question of balance that is involved here. Mr. Clark continued to say when there is a situation like this, there is a Planning Commission to add judgement to the facts, the regulations and guidelines, and to the Code to come up with what is a reasonable settlement of the issue. He stated that is what he is looking for tonight from the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark commented that the Tabahs want an expanded view over what the Mira Catalina tract homes currently have in terms of viewing up the coastline towards Santa Barbara island and a far west view of the sunset. He understands why, but in so doing he feels it creates a "clubhouse stadium" view into his backyard. He continued to say that the view from the balcony off the master bedroom is at such an angle that everything in Mr. Clark's backyard can be seen. Mr. Clark suggested that if he removed his awning over his patio, every aspect of his backyard is visible. Mr. Clark asserted that if this project was like the Peterson's home, which the Commission dealt with 1 1/2 years ago on a different size lot, he wouldn't be here tonight. He continued to say that if Staff and the applicant PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 6 000 had consulted with him at the point when they revised their plans, he felt again he would not be here tonight. Mr. Clark requested that the Planning Commission look at this project and make some modifications to the design to address his concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility and privacy. Commissioner Alberio confirmed that Mr. Clark bought his home in 1979. Mr. Alberio also confirmed that the Mira Catalina tract was built in the 1960s' and from two previous projects that the Commission reviewed, the CC'&Rs were applicable. Mr. Clark responded that the CC'&Rs never had complete force and affect because it required 100% membership in the homeowner's association for the CC'&Rs to have force and affect. He does believe that the CC'&Rs do address some limitations on size of homes in the Mira Catalina tract. He continued to say that there have been other second story projects in this tract and that some of his neighbors have argued that the CC' &Rs should not be abided by and that second story additions should not be permitted in the tract. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Clark what the proximity is between his house and the applicant's house. Mr. Clark responded that it is just over 101. Commissioner Alberio confirmed that the primary view is Catalina Island. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Clark if when he conferred with the Tabahs about modifying their design, did the Tabahs refuse. Mr. Clark responded that during the initial 30 - day comment period, he contacted by phone and left messages three times on the answering machine asking if they had taken into account some of his issues and whether there have been any changes. Mr. Clark continued to say he received a return message on his answering machine that indicated they were "in the Comment Period" and there would be no changes made. Mr. Clark indicated that had he had the opportunity to sit down after Staff had advised the Tabahs they had issues with the design, he feels they could have sorted it out. Mr. Clark stated that he didn't find out about the redesign project or the approval until he received the approval letter from the City. Commissioner Alberio confirmed with Mr. Clark that if given the opportunity, he would have been willing to work something out. Mr. Clark stated that he is not requesting the Planning Commission deny the project. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Clark what solution would he have suggested if he had the opportunity. Mr. Clark responded that he would have suggested removing the balcony off the master bedroom suite. He also would have suggested relocating the windows on the second story that overlook his backyard from the master bedroom suite and maybe reconfigure the master bedroom suite to look out the opposite direction and retain the west wall without windows. Commissioner Hayes noted that there would be a fireplace on the one wall and that would present a problem. Mr. Clark concurred, but PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 7 I� � added that his home is less than 151 away, and his property less than 71 away, from the proposed addition. If it were a vacant lot or a 30 or 40' difference in the side yard setbacks then it would be a different situation. Vice Chairman Byrd questioned Mr. Clark if he knew specifically the distance between his home and the Tabahs, noting that Mr. Clark indicated that they were 101 apart. Mr. Clark responded that he would have to measure it. Vice Chairman Byrd said when he looked at the property, he thought each house was at a 5' setback. He continued to say that from the drawings, it appears there is a 71 setback on the applicant's property. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the reason that it is deceptive is that there is an illegal tool shed along the side of the house. Commissioner Mowlds said the drawing indicated that it is 71 to the applicant's property and 51 to Mr. Clark's property, so it is 121 maximum, but it is hard to tell with the tool shed there. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Planning Administrator Petru how far can a fireplace intrude on the setback. Ms. Petru responded that the intrusion can be a maximum of 21 into the setback. Mr. Clark commented for the record that the Tabahs have been good neighbors. He further commented that he doesn't take this action lightly and regrets having to be here tonight. Commissioner Lorenzen asked Mr. Clark when mentioning the mass of the remodel next to him, is he looking for some additional setback from the rear of the property? Mr. Clark responded that he initially suggested that it could be redesigned so that it would be moved off the perimeter wall on his side. Mr. Clark stated that he never received any feedback on his suggestion. Mr. Clark continued to say that what the Tabahs are proposing is a 4,000 sq. ft. home and he has a 2,000 sq. ft. home. The average homes on his street range from 1700 to 2200 sq. ft., so the Tabah's proposed remodel will double the size of any home on the street. He continued on to say there have been homes on his street that have been remodeled, namely the Peterson's residence being the most recent case, and it's 3600 sq. ft. Mr. Clark emphasized, in terms of the immediate properties, the Tabahfs residence would be the largest. Mr. Clark pointed out that the original developer of the tract did not put windows in bedroom walls where there was the minimum 5' sideyard setback. He stated that he doesn't have any and neither do the Tabahs in their existing house. Mr. Clark feels that was done because of the lot configurations and where the footprints of the buildings were. Chairman Katherman wanted clarification from Mr. Clark as to whether he is suggesting that Staff did not follow proper review procedures. Mr. Clark responded that he did not suggest that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 8 Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Clark what kind of consultation was he suggesting. Mr. Clark said that the Tabahs already knew of his issues with their project, at the time they met with Staff. He said, had they contacted him and sat down to address these issues either before or after the Tabahs met with Staff, he felt they could of worked it out. Chairman Katherman stated that the City's review process is such that Staff, in it's technical evaluation, looks at the projects and presents recommendations and that is what has been done here. Chairman Katherman continued to say he feels proper procedures were followed in this case. Mr. Clark stated that he did not mean to allege or infer that proper procedures were not followed. Chairman Katherman stated he wanted to be clear on that. Mr. Clark wanted to clarify that he was talking about neighborhood consultation. Chairman Katherman stated that there is no requirement for neighborhood consultation other then what was done through the review process. Mr. Clark responded that he understood. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Clark what percent of the residents are members of the homeowner's association. Mr. Clark responded that he is not currently on the board, but he believes it to be 50- 60%. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing and announced that he will take testimony from those in support of the appellant. Clem Letarte, 3408 Corinna Drive, RPV, stated that his concern is the size. of the addition. He feels the area should be single story and stated the request should never have been granted, as it is not consistent with neighborhood compatibility. He continued to say he thinks it is in direct violation of the rights of others to privacy. Mr. Letarte stated the major factor that the Commission should consider pertaining to this request are nuisance of construction imposed on the neighborhood for an extended period of time, added traffic, restricted parking and safety. Mr. Letarte stated that he believes the quality of life will deteriorate. Alan Seawell, 3326 Deluna Drive, RPV, stated that Deluna Drive is the street above Corinna Drive. Mr. Seawell stated that his house is above the Tabahs. He continued to say he has been in the house for 22 years and at that time understood that all the other houses were going to remain single story. He stated that he objects to the height variation because it would spoil his ocean view. He also stated that it would give a jungle appearance upon entering the Mira Catalina tract. Richard Cordrey, 3308 Deluna Drive, RPV stated that he has lived at this address for 31 years. He said that his property is 150 feet east, 100 feet north and 60 feet higher than the Tabahs home. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 9 continued to say that his view of the ocean and Catalina is unobstructable. If the height variation request is approved, he feels he will have a deterioration of his view, with a disruption of the uniform roofline, the height variation will stand out from the conformity of the neighborhood which will create an aesthetic blight. He feels if the height variation is approved, it will be the first variation in structure heights approved in front of view properties. Mr Cordrey feels that it will set a variation precedent. If it is not rejected, resistance to future requests will be meaningless. He respectfully asked that the Commission not approve the request. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Cordrey what is different between the Peterson house and the Tabahs proposed design. Mr. Cordrey responded that the Peterson house is on a corner behind trees, not overlooked by other houses. Edward Johnson, 3320 Deluna Drive, RPV stated that he objects to the second story addition. Mr. Johnson feels that allowing a two story house would set a precedent. Mr. Johnson also feels that the house would stand out in a neighborhood which is only single story houses. Mr. Johnson stated that he fears the conversion to apartments in his neighborhood and feels it would be too easy if the Commission allows this height variation. Chris Clothier, 3314 Deluna Drive, RPV stated that she lives above the Tabahs' house and her objections are twofold. Ms. Clothier stated that first of all she objects to the precedent that gets set in terms of raising the height in this area and its impact on her view, although there is not a great direct impact. Ms. Clothier continued to say that the height request is inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood as previously stated by one of her neighbors. Donald Clothier, 3314 Deluna Drive, RPV stated that he objects to the height variation because of the design. Mr. Clothier stated that he and his wife are commuters and their home is their castle. He has lived in the Palos Verdes Peninsula area since 1970. He has seen changes occur in this area and he looks to the Planning Commission to help protect the beauty and tranquility of this area. Mr. Clothier stated that he asks the Planning Commission to maintain the semblance of a beautiful area that is like the country within the confines of Los Angeles. Mr. Clothier continued to say that he wants his area to remain relatively unchanged so his life doesn't lose value. He stated that he and his wife have made improvements to their home without changing the square footage. He stated that he has a view of Catalina and the isthmus. Mr. Clothier asked the Commission to deny the height variation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 10 RECESS AND RECONVENE - the meeting recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Chairman Katherman reconvened the public hearing. Lynne Tabah, 3348 Corinna Drive, RPV - (applicant) stated that she felt this hearing could have been avoided, but for the fact that Mr. Clark stated his opposition to this project in February and that he would be unwilling to cooperate with them in resolving this matter. While working on the neighborhood consultation she told her neighbors they were more than welcomed to come to her home, review the plans and discuss the problems at that time. Mrs. Tabah continued to say that, on advice from the City, she made significant changes to the plans originally submitted. At that time, which she believed to be April, Mrs. Tabah instructed Mr. Keller to remove the side balconies as she told Mr. Clark she would do. Mrs. Tabah stated that she spoke to Mr. Clark on only one occasion about this matter. Mrs. Tabah continued to say they softened the front elevation to become more compatible with the neighborhood. They intended to use exterior materials and colors that are commonly used in Mira Catalina to blend well with the other houses. The side windows in the master bedroom suite which are in question do not give them a view into Mr. Clark's yard. Mrs. Tabah stated they would only see the roof and patio cover. The window to the right of the projected fireplace will be recessed 1 foot and since as the chimney protrudes 2 feet, there will be no diagonal view. Mrs. Tabah said that this window is in line with the high point of Mr. Clark's roof. Therefore the view from this window will be only of Mr. Clark's trees and the sky. The window to the left of the fireplace will give them a distent view of Long Point and some beautiful sunsets over the Santa Barbara Island. This window will give them a continuation of the view of the rear window. The rear balcony which was in question, has been greatly reduced and angled back to restrict access to the sides. She believes Mr. Clark said the balcony was 25 feet wide, it is 12 feet in actual width. The windows in question are in a room which will be used only as a bedroom. The proposed furniture will be on the opposite walls to the windows. Mrs. Tabah stated that she and Mr. Tabah have tried many designs to enable them to have the elements required for a master bedroom. Mr. Keller has created a space with a focal point of a fireplace enhanced by windows, which will give the room a comfortable ambiance. Mrs. Tabah presented to the commission some photos of second story additions that have been built in other areas of the City. Mrs. Tabah stated that sometimes the Commission has turned down requests for applications where the question has been privacy. One case in point is Via Siena, where the two houses on Via Siena and Via Lorenzo, back on to each other and the second story addition on Via Siena looks directly into the backyard and pool PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 11 area of Via Lorenzo. This appeal was denied by the Commission. Mrs. Tabah stated that she and Mr. Tabah feel confident that the Commission will make a fair and unbiased decision in this matter. Ms. Tabah said she has more photographs of second story additions and added that she hopes their remodel will be more compatible than the homes in the photographs. Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs. Tabah if the photographs of the houses she presented were in Mira Catalina. Mrs. Tabah responded that they were in the Ganado Drive and Seaview areas. Commissioner Alberio commented to Mrs. Tabah that she indicated that Mr. Clark was unwilling to cooperate. Mrs. Tabah responded that Mr. Clark came to see her and voiced his• opposition to the project. Mrs. Tabah continued to say she received one telephone message from Mr. Clark asking if they had made the changes that she said she would make. Mrs. Tabah said she returned the call and left a message on his machine telling him they were still waiting for the City to make a decision and at the time when the City gave their decision the Tabahs would make the changes. Mrs. Tabah continued that it did not seem feasible to keep changing without hearing from the City. Mrs. Tabah stated that she told Mr. Clark to consider the balconies removed. Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs. Tabah if she had planned to relocate the balconies to the rear. Mrs. Tabah responded that when she spoke to Mr. Clark, he voiced his concern about the balconies and she told him to consider the side balconies to be gone. Commissioner Alberio concluded that the Tabahs were willing to compromise. Mrs. Tabah confirmed this. Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs. Tabah why there wasn't a compromise. Mrs. Tabah responded that Mr. Clark's exact words were "I'll fight you", which left her feeling that there could not be a compromise. Mrs. Tabah stated she contacted Mr. Clark in December before she started on the plans and spoke at length with him. Mrs. Tabah stated she told Mr. Clark at that time hopefully they could work things out. Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs. Tabah how she would feel about the Commission approving the windows only if they were translucent. Mrs. Tabah responded that she would have to think about it. Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs. Tabah how she would feel if the balcony was screened on the west side. Mrs. Tabah responded that she was not opposed to this, as long as it didn't obstruct the view from the windows. Commissioner Alberio referred to the photos of the other areas where recent height variations had been approved and stated that he prefers to make comparisons in the same area. Mrs. Tabah said she tried to take all recent additions and mentioned the one on Hightide is more than two years old and the one on Dauntless is not finished yet. Mrs. Tabah continued to say PLA14NING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 12 the house on Ganado was finished a few months ago. Commissioner Alberio said he is mainly concerned about the proximity of the Tabahs' residence to Mr. Clark's when he viewed it from Mr. Johnson's residence. Mrs. Tabah responded that there is 12' between the houses and the tool shed that Commissioner Mowlds referred to earlier, makes it look closer. Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs. Tabah if her architect tried to articulate the design so it wouldn't have such an impact on Mr. Clark's house. Mrs. Tabah responded that they have softened the sides by drawing the one window in and bringing the whole front facade back. She continued to say that they eliminated all rooms that were originally in the front, so the early morning sun would still be in Mr. Clark's kitchen. Commissioner Alberio then asked Mrs. Tabah if she was aware that if Mr. Clark were to decide to put a second story addition, she would not have that particular view at all. Mrs. Tabah responded that she was aware of that. Commissioner Lorenzen asked Mrs. Tabah if she had considered decorative windows that are located higher on the wall. Mrs. Tabah responded that she would not mind raising it a little, but it is not the kind of window she would stand at and peer out. She stated that they are the type of windows you view from a distance. Mrs. Tabah continued to say that most of the surrounding neighbors including herself and Mr. Clark can currently see into each other's backyard. Commissioner Lorenzen commented that in addition to the balcony off the master bedroom, there is also a long balcony over the patio. Mr. Lorenzen asked Mrs. Tabah if this will be her main deck. Mrs. Tabah responded that the balcony will afford cover to the patio below. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he thinks the balcony that Mr. Clark was referring to was the balcony in the center of Mrs. Tabah's home and it is larger than 12'. Mrs. Tabah responded that is was 211. wide. Commissioner Byrd complimented Mrs. Tabah on the articulation of the front of the house, however he wants to address the privacy issue. Mr. Byrd stated that the Commission needs to deal with the neighborhood compatibility issue. Commissioner Byrd stated that there is are quite a few people speaking here tonight against the project because it is one of the few two story homes in the Mira Catalina area. Commissioner Byrd asked Mrs. Tabah if she is willing to do something about the back balcony, either by putting a screen to the one side of it, to preclude the visibility into Mr. Clark's backyard or perhaps a balcony for appearance purposes but not usable. Commissioner Byrd then asked Mrs. Tabah how much use would they get out of the balcony in question. Mrs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 13 Tabah responded that they would use it on beautiful mornings to let the air in and go out and read the paper. Commissioner Hayes stated that the Tabahs had planned their addition for a Santa Barbara view, but they have the entire ocean and designing it this way, the Tabahs are interfering with someone's privacy. Commissioner Hayes continued to say that there must be some way to change the windows and perhaps use a decorative balcony where the doors can open, but one cannot actually sit out on the balcony. Commissioner Hayes stated her concern about homes in general being in close to each other. Mrs. Tabah stated the way the bedroom is designed makes the fireplace the focal point, with the windows contributing to that focal point. Mrs. Tabah continued to say the concept incorporates balance and symmetry while looking at it from a distance. Commissioner Alberio suggested a bay window. commissioner Hayes stated she didn't think a bay window, but maybe relocate the windows somewhere else and relocate the focal point in someway. Mrs. Tabah responded that the difficulty, with that, and she believes Commissioner Hayes has pointed it out before, is that there is a fireplace, and because of the cost factor, that particular location was picked so they would only have one chimney. Commissioner Hayes stated that she agrees with that, but felt the windows could be opaque, unless she is unwilling to give up the Santa Barbara view. Mrs. Tabah stated that she has a problem with opaque windows. She continued to say that she grew up in England and had to look at opaque windows while going to school. She said she finds them horrible. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mrs. Tabah if she would object to a condition of approval in which Staff would give the applicant three or four colors for their roof and the Tabahs would pick from those suggested colors. Mrs. Tabah responded that she originally had in mind to pick colors that would blend in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Mowlds clarified that the cohdition would be that Staff would pick the choice of colors, not the applicant. Commissioner Mowlds stating that if Mr. Clark put a second story addition and blocked the view from the bedroom windows, the Tabahs could not object to that. He continued to say that view might last just a few years. Chairman Katherman commented that the Code does not protect views from second story windows, only the first story. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Mrs. Tabah what she would do if Mr. Clark blocked her windows with a second story addition. Mrs. Tabah responded that it would only block one window directly and they would still be able to see the sunsets. Chairman Katherman asked Mrs. Tabah if'she would like to comment on Mr. Clark's suggestion of moving the closet around. Mrs. Tabah PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 14 responded that they tried moving the closet around many times, but the fireplace made it very difficult. She continued to say they originally had the closet in a different place. Chairman Katherman confirmed with Mrs. Tabah that she would have no objection to a covenant applying to the applicant's property prohibiting the applicants from converting the house into two units. Mrs. Tabah responded that she would not mind at all. Chairman Katherman complimented Mrs. Tabah and her architect on revising the plans and stated he thinks it would be very visually pleasing to the neighborhood. Chairman Katherman asked Mrs. Tabah if she would be willing to accept a continuance until July 13, 1993 to get together with Mr. Clark to try and work out a compromise. Jerry Keller, 2141 General St., RPV, architect, stated that after receiving direction from.Staff, he tried to redesign the addition to address the issues discussed here. He continued to say that the interior planning did not.work well primarily because the view is to the south and west and the Tabahs would like to retain that view. He continued to say Mr. Clark's house is not as far back on his lot as the Tabahs' is on their lot. Mr. Keller stated that Mr. Clark could eventually build a second story into the rear yard and block the Tabahs' view. However, to keep the cost down, they are trying to use the same foundation line and that is how the first scheme came about. Mr. Keller continued to say that the foundation line in the front of the house was originally used to carry the second story load. Mr. Keller indicated Staff felt that the apparent bulk of the structure would create a massive appearance for the neighborhood. Mr. Keller continued to say that after taking a new approach, he set the front of the house back 8', which creates a soft profile. Mr. Keller stated that the project has been designed to avoid any encroachment into the rear yard. He continued to say the sideyard setback is 71 on the west side of the house, so the project does not encroach into the side yard setback. Mr. Keller commented that the shed that is there came with the house originally. Mr. Keller stated that the two balconies have been eliminated on the west side. Mr Keller pointed out that they also eliminated a window on the west elevation. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Keller for alternatives to the balcony. Mr. Keller responded that he eliminated 2 balconies on the west side and the one to the rear has been splayed, so that the actual face of the balcony is only 121 wide. Mr. Keller continued to say that the Tabahs wanted a place to go out from their bedroom and have coffee, etc. Commissioner Alberio then asked about a bay window. Commissioner Alberio asked, in reference to the windows, why were the windows so low. Mr. Keller responded that the fireplace is right across from their bed and the windows would balance this focal point. Mr. Keller also stated that he could raise the height of the window sills. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 15 Mr. Keller stated that he and the Tabahs have tried to work very hard with Staff and there is a difference between the original plans and what was now being reviewed, and he thinks the profile of the building is very low and much more pleasing. commissioner Lorenzen stated that there still could be a decorative balcony off the master bedroom that would have a good view. Mr. Keller responded that the other balcony is blocked by the structure from enjoying views towards Santa Barbara Island. David Tabah, 3348 Corinna Drive, RPV, applicant, stated that the request to continue this item until July 13, 1993 is unacceptable, however Mr. Tabah requested 15 minutes to meet with Mr. Clark and try to resolve the problem. Mr. Tabah asked if the approval of the application was contingent upon the height of the windows? Chairman Katherman responded that if the window goes to the floor, one can stand at any point of the room and observe a portion of Mr. Clark's backyard. However, if the sill height was raised to the standard height, one would have to come up to the window and make an overt effort to look into the backyard. Commissioner Alberio stated that he would like to screen the side of the balcony where it views into Mr. Clark's backyard. Mrs. Tabah stated that she feels that a bay window would give more of a view into Mr. Clark's backyard. Commissioner Byrd stated that he does not like either one the windows and stated that he thinks the applicant should come up with another alternative or eliminate the windows. Mr. Clark stated he has always been willing to work this problem out and he was agreeable to a 15 minute conference to work the problem out. Chairman Katherman suggested that the Tabahs and Mr. Clark meet for a 15 minute conference and that the Commission continue to hear the next item on the agenda. Mr. Clark objected to that idea stating that he wanted to take part in the remaining public hearings. A motion was made to continue Height Variation No. 773 -Appeal to July 13, 1993. 1 AYES: Alberio, Mowlds, Lorenzen NOES; Bryd, Katherman, Hayes Chairman Katherman stated that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority of affirmative votes and asked if there was a substitute motion. .PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 16 A second motion was made to recess for 15 minutes to allow a conference between the appellant and applicant. AYES: Mowlds, Hayes, Lorenzen, Byrd, Katherman NOES: Alberio The meeting recessed at 10:01 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas stated that the applicants have conceded to remove the balcony at the south side of the addition and to raise the two windows along the west side to waist level. Mr. de Freitas said this was not acceptable to Mr. Clark. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. de Freitas to confirm that Mr. Clark did not accept those conditions. Mr. Clark pointed out that he did not necessarily want Staff to give the whole commentary of what had happened. Chairman Katherman allowed Mr. Clark to give his rebuttal of the previous testimony of the Tabahs. Mr. Clark stated that he did not feel his discussion with the Tabahs were long enough. He continued to say that the Tabahs have indicated a willingness to remove the balcony and modify the windows and he thinks that is a start in the right direction Mr. Clark further stated that he wants time to think about this and discuss it further. Mr. Tabah stated that he believes that he has given in, short of removing the windows, to most of Mr. Clark's demands. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Tabah if he thought any more discussion would help. Mr. Tabah responded that additional discussion would not help, since he feels Mr. Clark wants a block wall there. Chairman Katherman asked Assistant Planner de Freitas if it was Staff's position that there would not be invasion of privacy on Mr. Clark's backyard if the window sills were raised to waist height. Mr. de Freitas responded that was an accurate interpretation of Staff's position. Commissioner Mowlds disagreed with Mr. de Freitas and Chairman Katherman. Commissioner Mowlds stated that one can also see the jacuzzi cover, in addition to the deck. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that protecting privacy was definitely a concept that should• be considered by the Commission and that another design for the bedroom would be satisfactory. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes to continue Height Variation No. 773 -Appeal to July 13, 1993 with the direction given to the appellant, applicants and Staff to meet a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 17 before the next hearing to arrive at an agreeable solution to the issue of invasion of privacy. The motion passed (7-0). B. Height Variation No. 765 - APPEAL Cheng Hsiao, 6414 Seabryn (Applicant) and Mr. and Mrs. Parsa, 6408 Seabryn and Mr. and Mrs. Gerrie, 28926 Doverridge (appellants). Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein presented the staff report by stating Mr. Hsiao, the owner of the property at 6414 Seabryn, originally submitted Height Variation No. 765 to allow a 904 square foot upper level addition with a maximum height of 26f. Staff recommended that the applicant reduce the bulk and mass of the project. On April 14, 1993, the Acting Director subsequently approved a re -designed project which included a 556.5 square foot master bedroom and bath which would be setback 51 from the garage below with a overall height of 251. The property owners at 6408 Seabryn and 28926 Doverridge have appealed the Acting Director's decision of approval for the proposed second story addition at 6414 Seabryn. Staff conducted a view analysis from these properties and does not feel that this project would create significant or cumulative view impairment. Although the project would block a partial view of the ocean from the side elevation at 6408 Seabryn, Staff does not consider this room to be part of the primary viewing area, which is located at the rear of the home. Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and that Height Variation #765 be approved with conditions. Jim Gerrie, 28926 Doverridge, RPV, (appellant) wanted some clarification on the trimming of the tree in the front yard. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein stated that the trimming of the tree would be one of the conditions of approval. Mr. Gerrie stated that he wants the tree removed. He also stated that the addition doesn't inhibit his view totally, but from many of his rooms the addition is visible. Mr. Gerrie continued to say he has lived in his home for 19 years and has enjoyed the ocean and pastoral views and this addition would degrade the quality of his view. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Gerrie if he already had a second story addition. Mr. Gerrie responded yes. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Gerrie if many homes in the area have a second story additions. Mr. Gerrie responded that that was true. Mr. Gerrie continued to say when the builder constructed these homes the values were established based on the configuration of each individual home as you look down the hill and changes to that configuration are changes to the initial concept of the neighborhood. He continued to say that the applicant was creating value for the applicant but decreasing the value of his home. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 18 Fay Parsa, 6408 Seabryn, RPV (appellant) stated that she is located on the east side of the applicant's property and presented the Commission with pictures. Ms. Parsa continued to say that the proposed addition will totally block their western view. She said that she would like to see the addition modified. Commissioner Alberio asked Ms. Parsa if she were planning an addition since he noticed some framing on her east side when he visited the site. Ms. Parsa said she is building a second story addition at the east side. Commissioner Alberio then asked Ms. Parsa if she had problems with neighbors because of the addition. Ms. Parsa responded they did not. Ms. Parsa stated although they had no problems'with neighbors they were careful not to block any views of their neighbors. Ms. Parsa added that when Assistant Planner Klopfenstein visited they're house and took pictures, she said that the view would be blocked from their kitchen. Ms. Parsa wanted to clarify that was not the kitchen, but a living room and breakfast area. Ms. Parsa asked who determines the primary viewing area of a home. commissioner Alberio directed that question to Staff. Ms. Klopfenstein explained to Ms. Parsa that the Staff tries to find the most expansive view according to the Development Code and also the neighbor's idea of where their primary viewing should be taken. Commissioner Clark stated that the Development Code indicates that both the resident and the Staff will determine the location of the primary viewing area. Mr. Clark stated he feels that determination is solely made by the Staff. Chairmari Katherman asked commissioner Clark if he had visited the site in question. Commissioner Clark responded that he had. Commissioner Clark stated that he thinks the resident has the right under the Code to articulate what they consider the primary viewing area. Commissioner Clark further stated that whether a body such as the Planning commission would agree with that is another discussion. Chairman Katherman agreed and stated that the matter now is the Commission's to decide. Ms. Parsa stated that they have a wonderful view from their backyard, but that is not their primary viewing area. She also stated that the living room is where they spend most of their time, and should be considered the primary viewing area. Cheng Hsiao, 6414 Seabryn Dr., RPV (applicant) stated that any construction will have an impact on some views depending on where you are viewing from. Mr. Hsaio continued to say most of the houses on the south side of Doverridge are two story houses. Mr. Hsaio stated that because his house is so fat below Mr. Gerrie's on Doverridge, he doesn't know how his addition could have an impact on his view. Mr. Hsaio stated that the typical configuration of the houses on the east and west side protects the privacy of the residents and that his addition is actually on the west side of the house. Mr. Hsiao said that he and his wife do a lot of work at home and need the additional space. Mr. Hsiao strongly believes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 19 his neighbors are overreacting and believes the value of his neighbors homes would increase, rather than decrease, by his proposed addition. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Hsaio if he had been to the Parsa's house. Mr. Hsaio stated that he had. Commissioner Alberio then confirmed the view that Ms. Parsa was talking about. Mr. Hsaio responded that he is aware of it. Commissioner Alberio then asked Mr. Hsaio if he had been to Mr. Gerrie's house. Mr. Hsaio could not recall. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Hsaio if he would be willing to compromise with the Parsa's regarding the project. Mr. Hsiao responded that he feels they already have compromised by redesigning the front facade of the residence. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Mr. Hsaio if the architecture of the project is compatible to the neighborhood. Mr. Hsaio responded that he believes so, and added that except for the Parsas and the Gerries, all of the neighbors did not object. Commissioner Byrd asked Staff about the design of the roof. Ms. Klopfenstein responded that she worked with the applicant through 2 or 3 re- designs to reduce the bulk and mass of the structure to set it back from the garage. Commissioner Byrd commented that it was still obvious that this project is an addition. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he could not find any other house in the same area that looks like this one. He continued to say that this project looks like an addition. Mr. Mowlds suggested that the applicant and his architect re -design the configuration of the roof. Commissioner Mowlds asked the applicant if he could trim the trees. Mr. Hsiao responded that in the past he always trimmed the trees. He stated that he feels no matter how the roof is re -designed, there would be some view obstruction. Commissioner Mowlds said that an alternate plan should be developed that in some way helps the Parsa's with their view of the sunset. Mr. Hsaio stated that the sunset is seen from the back of the residences. Mr. Byrd said he feels the applicant can still have a second story addition without impacting the his neighbor's view. Commissioner Clark stated that he agrees with Commissioner Byrd and added that the neighborhood compatibility criteria defined in the Code is used to determine the compatibility of the structure with the surrounding neighborhood. The Code refers to the roof design specifically. Chairman Katherman asked the Commission if they had a problem with a finding of no significant view impact. Commissioner Byrd responded that he does not have a problem with that and, in fact, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 20 if the project is re -designed there would be no problem with the view. commissioner Byrd stated that the roofline and the massiveness of the project can be moved back which would protect the Parsals view from the breakfast area. Commissioner Alberio stated that he feels he cannot support this project without significant changes in the design. Commissioner Clark agreed with commissioner Alberio. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to uphold the appeal and therefore deny the second story without prejudice and also to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru commented that if the Commission takes action on this motion, the applicant would be required to submit a new height variation application and go through the entire approval process again. Chairman Katherman stated that the applicant has the right to appeal the Planning commission's decision and that denying without prejudice allows the applicant to file a new application immediately. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that the Commission postpone the decision. Commissioner Byrd disagreed with that because the appeal was made in good faith. Chairman Katherman asked for a roll call vote on the motion. AYES: Alberio, Lorenzen, Clark, Mowlds, Hayes, Byrd NOES: Katherman Chairman Katherman stated the action denied the application and upheld the appeal. He continued to say the procedural requirements however necessitate a resolution, which Staff will being back on July 13, 1993. The fifteen day appeal period would begin after this date. Chairman Katherman clarified that his no vote was an indication that he felt a revision could be made in the project, without denying it. Commissioner Hayes stated that was a good point, however, the applicant still has the opportunity to do something between now and the next meeting and the resolution could be removed from the consent calendar. Commissioner Alberio commented that he was willing to follow the suggestion of trying to work out a solution without the item going to City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 21 Commissioner Mowlds stated that he would like to find a way to re- design the roof structure. Commissioner Mowlds asked why the applicant doesn't want to re -design the roof. Mr. Hsiao clarified that he did not say didn't want to re -design the roof. Mr. Hsiao continued to say he is willing to work something out that would satisfy his neighbor and the Planning Commission, and also give him his addition. Commissioner Hayes stated that if the Commission misunderstood the applicant, in all fairness, the commission should give Mr. Hsiao the opportunity to redesign the project. Commissioner Mowlds moved, and commissioner Alberio seconded, the motion to withdraw the previous motion. Commissioner Byrd stated that the Commission should stay with the motion that was previously made. Commissioner Alberio stated that Mr. Hsiao is willing to re -design the roof which he thought would solve the problem. Commissioner Byrd then asked Mr. Hsaio how long he thought the re -design would take. Mr. Hsiao responded probably about a month. Commissioner Alberio moved, and Commissioner Lorenzen seconded, that the project be reconsidered. The motion passed by acclamation (7-0) Mr. Hsaio stated that he and his architects would need direction from the Commission for the re -design. Chairman Katherman suggested that the applicant start to re -design the roofline with the goal of bringing down the height of the roof and making it match as close as possible to the existing ridgeline. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that they may have to change the whole roof. Mr. Hashimoto, the architect, commented that the entire roofline would have to go up or the entire house, including over the living room area, would have to go up in order to make it compatible. Chairman Katherman commented that the only choice the applicant may have is to rip the garage out and push the garage floor down a couple of feet. He also explained to the applicant that the Commission does not want to design the house for him, but only to give him parameters and direction as to what the Commission is seeking. Chairman Katherman stated that the Commission is seeking to have a common ridge line on the residence. Mr. Hsiao agreed with the Commission and wants to do all he can to come up with an acceptable re -design. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 22 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein asked the if the Commission had any suggestions for the setback of the second story from the garage. Chairman Katherman clarified the original proposal was to set the second story back 2 1/2'. Staff felt that it should be fully articulated, so Staff approved an addition that would be setback 51. Ms. Klopfenstein stated that the addition blocks a portion of the ocean from the west elevation, however, Staff does not feel that this is the primary viewing area. Chairman Katherman stated that he agrees with Staff's interpretation that this is not a primary viewing area. Commissioner Byrd agreed with Chairman Katherman about the viewing area, however if the applicant is going to re -design the roofline of the house, the applicant should do as much as they can to accommodate their neighbors. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru clarified that, if the applicant comes up with a design that meets all the architectural and compatibility criteria specified by the Commission and the addition still impairs some portion of that view over 161, that this should not be held against the proposed project. Commissioner Hayes moved, and Commissioner Clark seconded, to re- open the Public Hearing, continue Height Variation No. 765 -APPEAL to August 10, 1993, direct the applicant and his architect to re- design the second story addition to be more compatible with the neighborhood, and directed Staff to assist the applicant in the modification process. The motion passed (7-0). REPORTS 1. Private Outdoor Living Area Requirements for The Hill, Tract No. 32677 Commissioner Hayes moved and commissioner Alberio seconded to accept the Staff's recommendations for "The Hill", Tract #32677. Chairman Katherman stated that he would like to commend Staff for taking a practical and realistic approach to a problem. Chairman Katherman continued to say he feels the City has, quite frankly, an excellent Staff in this regard and that Staff tries to accommodate usefulness without getting hung up in the process. Commissioner Hayes moved and Commissioner Byrd seconded to adjourn the meeting to July 13, 1993. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:36 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 1993 PAGE 23