Loading...
PC MINS 19930810A APPROVED 8% 8/-24 / 93 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 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, chairman Katherman Also present were Environmental Director Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas and Kim Klopfenstein. Commissioner Gilbert Alberio led the flag salute. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of July 13, 1993 Director Bernard noted that Staff prepared a set of "lengthy" minutes and more "abbreviated" minutes for the Commission from the July 13, 1993 meeting. Also included were "abbreviated" minutes from July 27, 1993 for the Commission's review. Commissioner Hayes stated that she strongly opposes "abbreviated" or "action" minutes. She said that she has had many years of experience where secretaries who take minutes leave out important segments of a meeting. The discretion has to be left to someone as to what is important. on very rare occasions she had noticed that what she had said had not been recorded. She has reason in her background to believe that having "action" or "abbreviated" minutes would not be effective. Ms. Hayes continued to say that she does not think "action" or "abbreviated" minutes saves time because the whole transcript of the meeting has to be typed first before deciding what is to be left in and what to leave out. Chairman Katherman asked Staff if that is the way the minutes are prepared. Director Bernard responded that in the case of the July 13, 1993 minutes, a set of "lengthy" minutes was prepared and then the "abbreviated" minutes were done. But for the "abbreviated" minutes for July 27, 1993, the secretary retrieved the important information from the tape recordings and then typed the information, which took her a third of the time that is normally required to prepare the "lengthy" minutes. Commissioner Hayes commented that on the July 13, 1993 "lengthy" minutes the second paragraph dealing with cumulative view impairment was left out in the "abbreviated" minutes. Commissioner Alberio stated that he agrees with Commissioner Hayes because on page 8 of the "abbreviated" minutes, there was no mention of the discussion he had with Mr. Tabah's attorney, Fred Corballis III regarding the State's power to regulate and the Commission's power to regulate. Commissioner Mowlds stated that it was unfortunate that the Commission had the La Barba case and the Tabah case before them to make a judgement on what kind of minutes the Commission should have. He stated that he never had a set of minutes that he "marked" up as much as these minutes. He then said that he does not like "action" minutes. He referred to the minutes taken in the early part of 1992, saying that they were substantially shorter than they are now and he doesn't remember why the minutes became so lengthy. But it seems they became voluminous suddenly when the minutes went from 8 pages to 22 pages in a month. He suggested that Staff go back and review how the minutes were prepared in the first quarter of 1992. Director Bernard responded that Staff did in fact review those minutes of 1992 and they do not contain the detail that is included in the recent minutes have. Commissioner Hayes responded that her recollection was that the Commission did not like the minutes back in January of 1992. Commissioner Byrd stated that he thought the reason why the Commission agreed to try "action" minutes was to address the fact that it took 60 hours of Staff time to prepare the set of minutes, as discussed at the July 13, 1993 Commission meeting. Director Bernard agreed and stated that as Commissioner Hayes indicated, the secretary has to listen to the tape recording and transcribe it, but doing that several times to understand what is being said is a result of the poor quality of the tape. So there is 30 to 40 hours in listening and transcribing, then the remaining time spent in editing and correcting the draft. Commissioner Hayes stated that the Staff may need new equipment. She said she knows of fantastic equipment where you can prepare 8 pages in an hour. Director Bernard responded that the Department of Environmental Services is not budgeted for new equipment. Commissioner Byrd asked what the "fully burdened" cost of a set of minutes cost. Director Bernard responded that he did not have that information tonight. Commissioner Byrd advised that they may be less expensive ways to take the minutes and provide the public with a complete record of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 2 exactly what is said at the Commission meetings. However, there may be a better way of doing it. In these minutes there were a number of errors that changed the context of the statement, so his conclusion is if this procedure isn't working, Staff might consider hiring a minute -taker from the outside. Commissioner Alberio, stated that he does not like "action" minutes. Chairman Katherman asked Commissioner Alberio specifically, did he like the "action" or "reduced" minutes for July 13 or July 27. Commissioner Alberio, responded that what should be preserved is the significance of what is said. As far as how much it cost, an outside person would probably make as much as what the salary is now, excluding overtime of course. Commissioner Byrd disagreed with Commissioner Alberio, stating that there would be a significant cost difference. He stated that the secretary can do something else besides spending 60 hours on minutes. Commissioner Hayes commented that the secretary must have interruptions such as telephones and other things, where if there was a court reporter, she would just do minutes, transcribe them and then go. Director Bernard commented that the position that Michelle Kennerson is filling in as Acting Administrative staff Assistant which is a position that Arlene Ruttenberg was in before leaving to fill the position of secretary for the City Manager. He continued to say Arlene spent a week and a half on a set of minutes. Michelle spends approximately the same amount of time. The position is basically budgeted for preparation of the minutes and as personal assistant to the director. He stated that he makes few demands of that position at this point. The telephones and counter is delegated to other staff assistants. Commissioner Hayes stated that it sounds like the equipment is a problem. Commissioner Byrd stated that the fact that the minutes cost so much is not because the Commission requests "detailed" minutes, it may be in the way they are prepared. He continued to say if the system is wrong, the City should change it. Chairman Katherman stated that the commission agrees that less time should be spent on preparing the minutes, but they should be accurate and a reasonable written record of what happened verbally at the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Hayes stated that she would not like context edited out that she has said. She said if the secretary is typing from the tape, she can type as she goes along. Commissioner Hayes continued to say that the secretary should just transcribe the text PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 3 verbatim, run spell check and if there is good equipment, it isn't that hard to accomplish. Commissioner Mowlds stated only once in 18 months had he listened to the tape recordings and it was awful. He suggested inquiring about how much it would cost to upgrade the system. Commissioner Clark stated that there is a way to get minutes that reflect the action, decisions and rationale and key ideas for issues without without having it verbatim. There are ways of approaching this task more efficiently and recommends the idea of some Commissioners working with Staff on that. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he thinks better recording equipment can be found for Staff and would help tremendously. Discussion ensued amongst the Commission and Staff involving corrections of the July 13, 1993 minutes, which and were noted by Staff. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Byrd to bring the July 13, 1993 minutes as amended, back to the August 24, 1993 P.C. meeting. The vote was (6-0-1) with Commissioner Clark abstaining. B. Minutes of July 27, 1993. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark to approve the minutes of July 27, 1993. The vote was (6-0-1) with Commissioner Hayes abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT NO. 34; Mr. and Mrs. John Peterson, 3608 Coolheights (applicants) (FF) The Commission waived the presentation of the Staff Report. Chairman Katherman asked Staff to clarify if Exhibit A, Condition of Approval #3, where it states "no grading", means that grading can be done up to 20 cubic yards. Assistant Planner Oabio de Freitas responded that was correct. Chairman Katherman requested Mr. de Freitas to include "grading can be done up to 20 cubic yards with less than three feet in height of cut and/or fill", in parentheses for that condition. Chairman Katherman referred to the landscaping under the deck and asked if the owner/applicant or Staff could to respond to that. Mr. de Freitas responded there would be no vertical support members PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 4 on the deck that would be visible and Staff felt it was not necessary to impose that landscaping condition, however the applicant has indicated that it is their intention to landscape the rear potion of the slope. John Peterson 3608 Coolheights Drive (applicant) was asked by Commissioner Byrd asked if the proposed spa was to be imbedded in the deck. Mr. Peterson responded that it would be on the lowest level of the deck, and on the side closest to the house so that the top of the spa would be almost ground level to insure no view impairment. It would actually be 30 inches lower than existing ground level. Commissioner Alberio asked the applicant if he had problems with the neighbors. Mr. Peterson responded that his neighbors on both sides have not voiced any opposition to the deck or spa. He said his neighbors to the left are not able to see the deck because they are very high. The only people that might see the deck are the people who are a step level below and there is no problem with them. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio to close the public hearing. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru presented language for the landscape condition stating that a "landscape plan to screen the deck, as viewed from below, shall be reviewed by the Director of Environmental Services prior to the issuance of building permits". Commissioner Clark commented that the spa requires a separate building permit and that is the reason the condition is there to distinguish for the applicant that they are not getting approval for the spa at this time. Commissioner Alberio commented that there should be some way to expedite these type of applications. Director Bernard responded to that saying it is one of the revisions to the Development Code that Staff is working on and will report back to the Commission on Staff's progress. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen to approve Extreme Slope Permit No. 34, subject to modified conditions, per P.C. Resolution No. 93-19. (7-0). Chairman Katherman noted that there is a 15 -day appeal period for the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 5 Commissioner Mowlds stated that the Commission has found that extreme slope permits and excavation under the existing building footprint could have been approved at a Staff level. Rather than wait for the revision of the Development Code, the appropriate Code Amendments can be put on the calendar, so the Commission can pass it and send to City Council. Commissioner Hayes noted that there should be neighborhood consultation before Staff approves any permit. B. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 36• Palos Verdes Unified School District, City-wide. (CP) Planning Administrator Petru presented the Staff Report stating that in order to fully lease their currently vacant school sites that are located in the City, the Palos Verdes Unified School District has requested a Code Amendment which would expand the allowable uses in a Institutional Zone. Currently Institutional Zones only allow public facilities such as government agencies offices or district offices, educational facilities, churches, clinics and commercial antennas. Commercial retail uses are not specifically permitted. What the school district is looking for is to amend the Code to broaden the types of uses that are allowed in the zone so they can lease out some of the more difficult spaces that have been left at some of their school sites. Staff took a look at this and felt that there might be some merit to this proposal. Most retail commercial businesses such as pharmacies, liquor stores or restaurants would clearly be inappropriate in an institutional zone because they are completely surrounded in many cases by existing residential neighborhood. However, Staff felt that certain businesses that were very minor in scope, may be permitted which do not result in the types of impacts normally associated with activities that can occur within a Commercial (CL, CN or CG) zoning district; and, would not normally impact other tenants on the site and the surrounding residential neighborhood. Currently, the City allows artist studios, which are technically a commercial/retail use, because they are producing a product that they sell for profit, although it is off-site. other appropriate commercial retail uses may be small offices, such as for bookkeeping, consulting, management companies, and mail-order businesses. These are some of the kinds of businesses the City allows through home occupation in our single family residential districts. They have minimal impact, and don't change the outward appearance of the building, although they do generate small amounts of traffic. Other commercial uses that Staff thought would be appropriate would be storage and workspace for small businesses that actually produce a product such as assembling earthquake kits or creating floral arrangements and gift baskets. Staff is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 6 suggesting that there be no signage associated with these uses and traffic and parking demands be no greater than what can be accommodated on site. The uses would not be of the type that would involve on-site sale of any kind goods or services. The manufacturing would be primarily non-mechanical so there would no noise concerns. Therefore, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission consider recommending to the City Council an amendment to Code Section 17.28.020, that would allow certain minor professional retail commercial uses, provided that they can demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction that they would not create adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Any new use in an institutional zone requires a conditional use permit. So if a retail use is being proposed on an institutional property that didn't already have a conditional use permit, they would have to obtain one. But in the case of these vacant school sites, the three that are in the City already have conditional use permits on them, so assuming that the Director is satisfied with the proposed use, the Director could allow that use to go in and his determination could be appealed to the Planning Commission. one alternative that was not included in the Staff Report that the Commission may want to consider is requiring a revision to the master conditional use permit for any recent use that is proposed. That may add a burden to the process and might discourage a few smaller businesses from going in but it is an option the Commission may want to consider. Commissioner Hayes asked Staff if these tenants would be required to have a business license. Ms. Petru responded that they would have to obtain a business license. Commissioner Byrd addressed the problem of parking at two of the schools listed. He said at Ridgecrest School he knows that the neighborhood objects to the traffic imposed. Commissioner Mowlds stated that when the commission was considering the master CUP at Ridgecrest, the neighbors complained about all the problems that would occur at the school site but he has yet to see a problem. Discussion ensued amongst Commissioner Byrd and Lorenzen about traffic impacts around the school. Commissioner Clark stated that he has questions and thoughts on specific language for this amendment and supports the concept. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he supports the Staff's recommendation as well. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Alberio stated that he also supports the Staff's recommendation, however, he feels there should be a public notice if a decision is made that might impact a neighborhood. Chairman Katherman asked Ms. Petru to explain how the abutting homeowners would be notified under this plan or even if they would be notified. Ms. Petru responded that they would not. The language already exists in the Code under commercial/professional which makes no provision for noticing, but it could be added if the Commission thinks it's appropriate. Chairman Katherman asked how much the fee would be for the Director's determination. Ms. Petru responded that there hasn't been a fee established for this, but probably be similar to the Use Determination application, which is $400. Chairman Katherman stated that the fee was equivalent to a conditional use permit revision. Ms. Petru stated that Staff has found the need to create two categories during the year that this fee has been in force. Chairman Katherman asked Staff how would this hearing had been noticed. Ms. Petru responded that Staff published the notice in the newspaper 15 days in advance of the hearing. Commissioner Hayes commented that the Code Amendment idea seems to be a good way to keep the schools from getting run-down and feels it is a prudent use of the vacant school sites. Director Bernard stated that this idea has certain benefits for the school district to help pay for those costs to keep the remaining schools open. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that from what he has seen in that area where the school is located, he would think the community would be very happy to see the site used and maintained. Chairman Katherman declared the Public Hearing open and asked if there were any requests to speak. There were no requests to speak. Commissioner Nowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes to close the public hearing. DISCUSSION Commissioner Clark stated that he was concerned about the language the Commission submits to the City Council. Mr. Clark stated that when the language is read "minor prof essional/retail commercial uses which are clearly ancillary to the major use", that is fine. But when the document says "shall not involve sale of goods on site", doesn't that denote on-site sales? PUNNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 8 Commissioner Mowlds responded that in the case of "Beautiful Weddings" the custom florist who initiated this action, their actual sale is made in people's homes. He suggested some of the examples that Ms. Petru had on the previous pages of her staff report could be included in the Code language so people can understand it better. Commissioner Byrd stated that he thinks if there will be businesses at the school sites, the public needs to be notified. He continued to say he was not sure whether the Director of Environmental Services should shoulder the responsibility regarding what types of businesses could be allowed. If a business was allowed which happend to be controversial, he feels it would not be fair to the Director. Commissioner Mowlds stated that if the Director is not allowed to make those types of decisions, the Commission will then have to deal with it. At some point the Commission has to decide to let the Director of Environmental Services shoulder that responsibility and make those decision and if it is controversial, the community will let it be known. Chairman Katherman said that he agrees with Commissioner Byrd, inasmuch as he would like to incorporate some kind of a abutting owner's notification process. He said this is similar to an interpretation by a zoning administrator on what uses are allowed within a particular zone. He said he sees no problem with the language, but asked how the Commission implements this language. Commissioner Byrd concurred adding further that there might be unusual requests that will come before the commission. Chairman Katherman asked Staff how much would it cost for an abutting property owner to appeal this decision. Ms. Petru responded that it would be $740 for a minor appeal. chairman Katherman commented that was more than a conditional use permit revision. Discussion ensued amongst Staff and Chairman Katherman regarding the fees on the notification of the previous extreme slope permit. Commissioner Byrd suggested putting the item on the Consent Calendar instead of going through the Public Hearing process. If any member of the Commission wants to take it off the Consent Calendar, then the proposal could be discussed. The fees of appeal were discussed amongst the commission and Staff. Director Bernard suggested modifying the language to include a number of the Commission's suggestions such as listing the types of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 9 uses that may be considered, notifying the abutting neighbors and HOA's of the Director's determination on a particular request. Commissioner Byrd stated what the Commission does has to be good for the City and sometimes there is a test whether it would be good for the City or good for the school. Chairman Katherman stated that he wants this recommendation to be good for both City and school district. Commissioner Hayes commented that she thinks the neighbors would pool their resources and if they wanted to appeal, they would do it collectively. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to recommend approval of the proposed Code Amendment to the city Council with modifications to the language and Staff will return with a Resolution for Commission adoption at the August 24, 1993 meeting. The vote was (7-0) by acclamation. RECESS: 8:40 P.M. RECONVENE: 8:50 P.M. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 765 - APPEAL Cheng Hsiao, 6414 Seabryn (applicant) and Mrs. and Mrs. Parsa, 6408 Seabryn and Mr. and Mrs. Gerrie, 28926 Doverridge (appellants) Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report stating that the Planning Commission first considered this project on June 8, 1993. At that time the applicant was directed to work with Staff to re -design the project to integrate the second story addition and provide a common ridgeline for the residence. The original application included a 556.5 sq. ft. second story addition with a 51 setback from the lower story and a maximum height of 251-011. The proposed second story addition has been reduced to 540 square feet and the ridgeline would be lowered to 231-011 with a 3:12 roof pitch. The existing 2nd story roof slopes downward, and the height of the east elevation wall adjacent to the chimney would be increased to accommodate the new roof. Although the ocean view would be blocked from the breakfast/living room at 6408 Seabryn, Staff finds that a significant portion of the ocean view would be blocked at 161 in height and Staff does not consider this to be a primary viewing area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 10 In reviewing the height variation guideline criteria, it states that the viewing area shall be that area of the structure excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets and setback areas where the owner and the City determine where the best and most important view exists. The determination shall be made by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot where the view is taken. Staff feels that the new roof would provide a common ridgeline for the residence, and the addition would not appear to be a "pop up". Furthermore, Staff feels that the new roof design, the front elevation articulation, height and scale of the revised project would be compatible with the architectural style of other residences in the neighborhood and recommends approval of the project to the conditions in the attached Exhibit "A". Since this was a continued item, Chairman Katherman re -opened the public hearing. James L. Gerrie, 28926 Doverridge Drive, (appellant) stated that he has reviewed the re -design plan and the revised structure outline of the house and it appears no different than before. He continued to say that the bulk is still present and jeopardizes the ocean view from his living room window. There has not been any improvement on the revised plans relevant to the view. Mr. Gerrie then referred to the letter Mr. Hsiao wrote to the City and presented his opinions on the content of that letter to the Commission. Mr. Gerrie stated that the Commission has three people who are against it and one absentee who is for it. From the neighborhood perspective, they would like the Commission to consider the neighbors feelings as opposed to the man from out of town who wants to build something and no one knows if he will ever live in it. Mrs. Fay Parsa, 6408 Seabryn Drive, (appellant) stated that Mr. Hsiaols re -design has not changed and did not offer any modification. The height of the existing roof has been raised 2-3 feet above what was originally designed. The second story setback still remains at only 5 feet from the front of the garage. What was asked from the members of the Planning Commission at the June 8 meeting was that Mr. Hsiao cooperate with his neighbors regarding the re -design of his addition. Mrs. Parsa stated that no neighbors have been contacted nor consulted by Mr. Hsiao. Mrs. Parsa presented photographs showing the articulation of the second story structures on Seabryn Drive to the Commission for their review. She continued to say she feels that the addition is unattractive and massive and is not compatible with the neighborhood. She believes that the addition would de -value their property. This PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 11 project will totally impair the view from their living area, which is used for their main gathering point. Mrs. Parsa stated that she asks the Planning Commission not to grant permission for this approval for this project. And also deny it for the overgrown trees which are blocking her views. Commissioner Clark stated to Mrs. Parsa that he was confused at her comments regarding impairing her view from the primary living viewing area of her home. He recalled that the primary viewing area was out the back towards the ocean. Mrs. Parsa responded that her understanding of primary viewing area is where you live and gather. Mrs. Parsa further stated that indeed she has a view from the backyard but that her family does not live in the backyard. Commissioner Clark concluded that Mrs. Parsa disagreed with Staff's interpretation on what the primary viewing area is. Mrs. Parsa responded that when they bought the house it had a 270 degree view and they would like to keep it that way. Commissioner Hayes asked Mrs. Parsa what her understanding of the setback was from the house in question. Mrs. Parsa responded that it was 5 feet. Commissioner Hayes then concluded that it was three times deeper than any other house on the street. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mrs. Parsa where in the Development Code does it state that 15 feet is required for setbacks and how can the Commission tell Mr. Hsiao he is doing something that is prohibited. Mrs. Parsa responded if one looked at the pictures she presented one could see the harmonious design of the whole neighborhood as opposed to house in question, which looks boxy. Commissioner Mowlds clarified to Mrs. Parsa that the Development Code does not prohibit someone from building a straight up and down addition unless there are other conditions present which is not the case in this project. Chairman Katherman clarified to Commissioner Mowlds what he thought Mrs. Parsa was saying which was this decision should be based on neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Mowlds then commented that the issue is neighborhood compatibility not stipulated articulation. Chairman Katherman clarified to Mrs. Parsa that she indicated the height had increased 2-3 feet. Mrs. Parsa agreed. Mr. Katherman continued to say that in the Staff Report, it indicates the height of the roof was scaled down from a maximum of 25 feet to 23 feet. Chairman Katherman asked Mrs. Parsa to explain what she means by the height increase. Mrs. Parsa responded that the existing roof has been modified in the re -design plans. Assistant Klopfenstein interjected that the east elevation adjacent to the chimney would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 12 be raised to accommodate the new roof configuration. Mrs. Parsa asked if it was just the east side. Ms. Klopfenstein stated that the existing roof slopes downward at the front of the building and the re -designed project would increase the height of the east side wall to accommodate the new roof. Mrs. Parsa asked about the appearance of a room on the northeast side of the property. She asked if this would add to the square footage. Ms. Klopfenstein responded that it would be airspace, not habitable, to accommodate the new roof. Billy D. Persons, 28927 Doverridcre Drive, stated that he lives directly above the property in question. He would have spoken against this project before, but he lives in Hawaii part time and was not notified. The Parsals sent him a letter, but he did not receive it in time. Mr. Persons stated that the addition in question would obstruct the view from his dining room. He continued to say that it concerns him that someone who knows ahead of time that they are going to obstruct someone else's view would still want to obstruct it. Mr. Persons stated that both Mr. Hsiao and everyone else in the neighborhood knows what they bought when they purchased their homes. He continued to say that he is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his views without someone coming along with full knowledge that they are going to impede those views. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Persons if he paid an extra amount of money for his property because it has a view. Mr. Persons responded that he did. Commissioner Alberio then asked Mr. Persons if he is aware of any rules or CC&Rls relating to impairing views on his property. Mr. Persons responded negatively, however his understanding of the view ordinance is that it is protected from obstruction. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Persons if there was a provision for protecting his view in his deed. Mr. Persons responded that he was not aware of any. Commissioner Mowlds indicated to Mr. Persons that he did not visit his property. commissioner Clark asked Ms. Klopfenstein if Mr. Person was visited by Staff for a view analysis. Ms. Klopfenstein responded that she was unable to contact Mr. Persons and was only able to do a view analysis from the outside of his house. Commissioner Clark asked Ms. Klopfenstein for her assessment. She responded that there was no view impairment that she could see, however she could not reach the rear of the house, so she does not know where the dining room was located. She said most of the view is directed downward. Unfortunately, Mr. Persons was not in town. Commissioner Hayes concurred with Ms. Klopfenstein commenting that it didn't appear to be that much of a view impairment but again she could not go inside the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 13 Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Persons what the elevation of his property is. Mr. Persons said he didn't know exactly what the height is, but his property sits higher than the subject property. Looking west and south over Mr. Hsiaols home, Mr. Person stated that he has a view of "the point". Ms. Klopfenstein commented that the elevation can be obtained from the City's topography map. Commissioner Byrd asked Mr. Person if the ridgeline of the house causes the view to be obstructed or is it the addition over the garage. Mr. Persons responded that it is the ridgeline of the house that causes the impairment so that he no longer can see the point. Discussion ensued amongst the Commission and Mr. Persons regarding what part of the addition was obstructing his view: the addition over the garage or the addition over the main part of the house. Ms. Klopfenstein stated that the existing roof is 19 1/2 ft. it will be raised to 23 ft. to make a common ridgeline for the addition. At the east elevation where the chimney is located they will raise that wall to accomodate the new roof. Commissioner Byrd then clarified that the total ridgeline of the house is now raised 4 feet. Ms. Klopfenstein stated that was correct. Commissioner Byrd asked Ms. Klopfenstein what the height of the current ridgeline of the house. Ms. Klopfenstein responded that it was 19 1/2 feet and the garage is about 14 feet. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Persons if he could see the lighthouse from his house. Mr. Persons responded that he didn't know. Commissioner Mowlds then asked what did Mr. Persons mean when he said the frame flags were put up higher, they were going to block something. Mr. Persons responded that it would block to the left of his home down to the ocean and out to the point. He then invited the Commission to come up to his home so he can show them what he is referring to. Commissioner Mowlds said that because Mr. Persons did not send a letter in time, the Commission did not get a chance to visit his home. Mr. Mowlds was having difficulty trying to determine if Mr. Persons' view was protected. Mr. Persons responded that he did not know that but he will make sure and find out if that is indeed the lighthouse at the point. Cheng Hsiao, 6414 Seabryn Drive (applicant) stated that he has proposed this addition due to his expanding family. He said when they bought the house in 1985, he and his wife had only 2 children, now they have 4 children. Also with the emergence of telecommuting both his wife and he are able to work at home. In considering the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 14 alternatives for his addition, he took the City's guidelines which states the viewing areas should be the area of the structure excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets where the owner and the City determine the best and most important view exists. Given the topography of Seabryn Drive, it appears to him that the most important views are towards Catalina Island and Hesse Park to the south. The houses on the southside of Seabryn Drive also have been designed to take advantage of this view. The most important viewing area on Seabryn Drive should be the south side. In addition, one of the houses on the south side of Seabryn Drive is two-story, therefore, he feels that this addition on top of his garage is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Hsiao continued to say that he did not see Mrs. Parsals pictures, but many houses on Seabryn, Scotwood and Doverridge have no setback on the second story, including Mr. and Mrs. Parsals house. Mr. Hsiao also stated that he and his wife prefer the re -design and stated that he was grateful to the Commission to suggest it. Mr. Hsiao then explained to the Commission the reason for his absence from his residence for I year. Commissioner Byrd commented to Mr. Hsiao that he and his architect improved the architectural design of the addition since the last Commission meeting. He continued to say that when there is a re- design of a home based on what the Commission has recommended, many instances the original plan is not altered. For example, looking at the floor plan of the house, the applicant has a 161 ceiling in the living room. Mr. Byrd suggested using that area as habitable sapce and increase the setback over the applicant's garage. He continued to say he does not think the current design minimizes the view impacts. Mr. Byrd asked Mr. Hsiao if he had considered that. Mr. Hsiao responded that his main focus was the roofline and did not think of the view impacts, but that option initially was available on the original plan, but after consulting with the architect regarding circulation and lighting it didn't appear at that time to be a feasible alternative. Commissioner Lorenzen stated at the previous meeting the applicant was directed by the commission to work with his neighbors on the re -design. Mr. Lorenzen asked why were the neighbors not consulted. Mr. Hsiao responded that he felt frustrated and did not want to meet with his neighbors. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to close the public hearing. DISCUSSION Commissioner Alberio stated that the commission had given directions to both Staff and the applicant to consult with the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 15 applicant's neighbors, to articulate the addition to minimize the view impacts and also to articulate the structure so it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Alberio said he does not think that any of the above directions have been done. He continued to say that when he compares the plans with the original plans, he sees very little changes. In view of the fact that a new property owner has come forth against the project, he suggests the Commission take another look at Mr. Persons "protected view". Commissioner Hayes stated that she concurs with Commissioner Alberio inasmuch as it is very difficult when the Commission has new information that can change the way one might view the project. She continued to say she doesn't know if Mr. Person's can see the lighthouse or Catalina or just the ocean. She said she did not visit Mr. Person's property and pointed out she was only in the front of his property. Ms. Hayes added that it would be beneficial to look at the view from Mr. Person's property. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein stated she was only in the front and side of Mr. Person's property, and the view slopes downward so unless she was inside the house, she was not able to tell where the primary view area would be taken from. Chairman Katherman asked Ms. Klopfenstein if the view would be impacted. Ms. Klopfenstein responded that she does not know where the primary viewing area is on that property since she has not been inside. She said she would have to go into the rear property to find out. Commissioner Alberio stated that he could not tell whether there were new flags or old flags concerning the framing. Ms. Klopfenstein noted that the applicant did put up new flags and an entirely new frame. The new flags show the new ridgeline. Chairman Katherman stated that Commissioner Byrd raised an interesting point in terms of utilization of the new volume of space inside the house. Mrs. Parsa raised the issue of setback in terms of the house's neighborhood compatibility. Jerry Hashimoto, architect, 31205 Floweridge Drive, RPV,- was asked by commissioner Byrd about the utilization of the new volume of space inside the house. Mr. Hashimoto said he tried to maintain a 3:12 slope not only over the existing house but also over the new addition and that is hoiq he arrived at the ridgeline. Discussion ensued amongst Commissioner Byrd and Mr. Hashimoto regarding the ceiling height and the new volume inside the house. Mr. Byrd asked Mr. Hashimoto about how to minimize the view impacts, and why did he not consider moving the garage back further and utilize the space over the living room. Mr. Hashimoto responded that for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 16 circulation, it wasn't acceptable to the owner, as far as where he wanted to have the master bedroom in relationship to the other bedrooms. The owner wanted more separation from the other bedrooms. Commissioner Byrd commented that maybe to satisfy the neighbors, the applicant should re-evaluate that requirement. Mr. Byrd commented that when the Commission offers what they hope is constructive criticism, they ask the applicant to go back and review the design and sometimes there are other opportunities that the applicant didn't see before. Mr. Byrd stated that he thinks the applicant and architect should reconsider the new volume of space to maximize the utilization of it, and at the same time it would minimize the view impairment. Mr. Hashimoto responded that they considered that as a possible area to add the square footage into but presently there is a hillside on one side, so there would be no rear view from the master bedroom because of the other bedrooms that are located there, therefore, there is only a view of the street and the front. Commissioner Byrd stated to Mr. Hashimoto that he was creating a view at the expense of other people's view. Discussion ensued amongst Commissioner Byrd and Mr. Hashimoto regarding the utilization of the new volume of space resulting from he re -design. Commissioner Mowlds stated that there are neighbors who said the front of the house doesn't match the rest of the neighborhood because it is not articulated enough. There are other neighbors that stated that the ridge is too high. There are two distinct issues here. one is the height and the other is "curb appeal". Commissioner Byrd stated that his interpretation of the testimony of the neighbors is that the major objection to the project is the proposed increase to the roofline of the exisitng second story. Discussion ensued amongst the Commission regarding two separate view issues; the Parsa'a view and the views of the neighbors on Doverridge Drive. Commissioner Clark asked the Commission about the neighbor that came forth recently, namely Mr. Persons. Mr. Clark continued to say that his observation of the impact on the view has to be taken in context of the elevation and the fact that it has to be a significant view impairment under the Code. Commissioner Clark stated that from the testimony, he does not think it is a significant view impairment. Commissioner Byrd said that assumption cannot be known because Staff nor the Commission have not had the opportunity to visit Mr. Persons' house. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 17 Commissioner Alberio suggested the Commission consider the following: 1. That the Commission investigate the view impairment from 28927 Doverridge Drive. (Persons) 2. Direct Staff and applicant to consult with the neighbors. 3. Look into the possibility of articulating the second story to reach a compromise to satisfy the neighbors. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein asked the Commission if they had suggestions about the articulation of the second story. Commissioner Alberio responded that Staff review the setbacks in the neighborhood as pictured in Mrs. Parsals photos. Commissioner Byrd suggested looking into using the vacant space above the living room as habitable space. Chairman Katherman concluded that the Commission is suggesting a re-examination and that the applicant's architect review the potential re -design to set the front second story addition back further from the front of the garage. Discussion ensued amongst Staff and Commission regarding the date of continuation of the public hearing. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes to continue the Public Hearing to September 28, 1993 P.C. meeting. The motion carried (7-0). Chairman Katherman noted that the September 28, 1993 meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. IX. REPORTS A. Director Bernard stated that he will be on vacation between August 13 through August 20, 1993, and in his absence Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru will be Acting Director. B. Chairman Katherman reminded Staff and the members of the Commission of the 20th Anniversary of Rancho Palos Verdes activities, including the forthcoming weekend's picnic and softball game. X. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE Lois Larue stated that she is an associate member of the California First Amendment Coalition and wants to share PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE IS information with the Commission that she received from the freedom of information publication "Flash" regarding "the opening of the government of the City of San Francisco to the people". She continued to say she hopes that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will consider doing the same thing for their citizens. XI. ADJOURNMENT commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Byrd to adjourn the meeting. (7-0) The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m. The Next Regular Meeting of the Commission is scheduled for August 24, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 PAGE 19