Loading...
PC MINS 19941109APPROVED''} Or- *-,,-1 12/13/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING November 9, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by former Planning Commissioner Louella Wike. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio. ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Assistant Planner Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary Drasco. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Director Bernard stated that Staff had received 31 letters in favor and 14 letters in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. VILA since the agenda packets were distributed to the Planning Commission on last Thursday. Staff did not have the resources to make copies for each Commissioner by that evening, but passed around the correspondence for review in consideration of the project. In total, there were 130 letters in opposition and 77 letters in support of the proposed project. The Commission had been provided with a table summarizing correspondence received for this project. B. COMMISSION Chairman Alberio indicated that all members of the Commission had received a packet from Mr. Matharu, the applicant, as well as a telephone call from Mr. McNamara, the appellant, for Public Hearing Item VIIA. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 1994. Commissioner Ferraro pointed out that on Page 16, 2nd paragraph, the repetitive words "continue to" should be deleted. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to approve the Minutes of October 11, 994, seconded by Commissioner Wang (5-0-2), with Commissioner Hayes and commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining because they were not present at the October 11, 1994 meeting. B. Adopt P.C. Resolution Nos. 94- . and 94- ; thereby memorializing the Planning Commission's decision of October 25, 1994, for Coastal Permit No. 124 and Variance No. 378 at 6470 Seacove Drive (Dr. and Mrs. Robert Hunt) . (TS) A discussion ensued between the Planning commission and Staff regarding the process for and the possibility of further consideration of the decision of October 25, 1994. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to deny adoption of the two Resolutions for Coastal Permit No. 124 and Variance No. 378 at 6470 Seacove Drive, seconded by commissioner Ferraro. The motion passed (3-2-2) on the following roll call: AYES: Hayes, Ferraro, Mowlds NOES: Wang, Alberio ABSTAIN: Whiteneck (because his home is near the subject property) and Vannorsdall (because he was not present for any of the previous hearings on the item) Director Bernard stated that Staff would consult the City Attorney regarding the procedure and bring back her comments at the next meeting on December 13, 1994. Chairman Alberio requested, and the Commission agreed without objection, to reorder the agenda to address the Public Hearing item before the Continued Business item. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 800 - APPEAL, EXTREME SLOPE NO. 37; Pritam and Ranni Matharu, 5303 Bayridge Road. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. Chairman Alberio declared the Public Hearing open and called for the first speaker. Mr. Mike McNamara (appellant) , 5402 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. McNamara asked the neighbors who agreed with his opposition of the proposed addition who were present to stand (about half the audience) . He stated that, as well as being a concerned citizen, he was also a lawyer with respect for the law and he felt that the law found in the City Code, Section 1702.040(C) (1) (d) was being applied incorrectly. He believed that the decision should be based on the law and guidelines and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 2 procedures as outlined in the Height Variation Guidelines prepared by the City, a copy of which he provided for the Planning Commissioners. Mr. McNamara directed the Commissioners' attention to Page 10 of the brochure listing criteria that must be met for an addition to conform to the immediate neighborhood character and indicated that important factors were the response of the public to the required notification and comparison wh nearby homes. Mr. McNamara reported that neighborhood res onses received by September 22, 1994, when the Planning Department recommended approval, were 93 letters in opposition and 11 in support. He believed these statistics were not given the proper significance in the September 22, 1994 Staff Report, as they were mentioned only in passing and not identified as one of the factors for determining neighborhood character. Mr. McNamara said that the scale of this house would be totally out of character with the neighborhood of 40 -year old houses, only one of which has a small second story addition. He objected to the perspective of the artist's rendering (provided by the applicant) which viewed the home from a much higher level than the street. He noted that the average house in the tract was 1,631 square feet in size and this addition would enlarge the subject house to 5,100. Mr. McNamara's opinion, in regard to architectural style, was that this house would be radically different from the style of the other residences in the neighborhood, with a massive fortress -like appearance, columns, tile -covered porches, and a medieval turret tower, all very visible from the street. Contrary to Staff's judgment, Mr. McNamara felt that views were jeopardized, referring to Pages 8 and 9 of the City's Height Variation Guidelines, and pointed out that a second story addition could not be constructed on a promontory. Mr. Don Wilkens, (applicant's architect), 22241 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA. Mr. Wilkens indicated that he was present to answer questions. He explained that the house had been conceived and designed in accordance with the wishes of Mr. Matharu and with guidance from Staff in consideration of the neighbors' interests. Commissioner Wang asked about Mr. McNamara's statement that the perspective of the rendering was higher than eye level. Mr. Wilkens clarified that the rendering was done by friends of the applicants, but it was his understanding that the higher vantage point was not intended to deceive and added that he felt that the house was quite hidden from the street by trees. Mr. Pritam (Tom) Matharu (applicant), 5402 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Matharu provided photographs which he felt PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 3 indicated that trees blocked the view of the house from the street. He discussed views from various locations in the neighborhood, including residences and a church on Silver Spur Road and did not feel that any views were threatened. He pointed out that the reason he was adding a second story instead of further expanding the first floor of his home house was to protect the view of his neighbor across the street. Ms. Becky Christensen (applicant's attorney), 911 Wilshire Blvd., #2288 A, Los Angeles, CA. Ms. Christensen reiterated that the project would not block any views, that the house was largely hidden by foliage and that the lot was located at the end of a cul- de-sac. She felt the house could create a positive change and improve property values in the neighborhood. She added that this particular project met the Height Variation requirements and made reference to Dolan vs. Tigard, a case from Oregon which was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Commissioner Ferraro asked Ms. Christensen to briefly state the facts of Dolan vs. Tigard. Ms. Christensen detailed the case of Dolan vs. Tigard which concerned a woman expanding her hardware store in the town of Tigard, Oregon, and how her case went ultimately to the Supreme Court. Ms. Christensen also asked the people attending that night in support of the proposed project to stand (again, about half the audience stood up.) Mr. Rollin Sturgeon, 5456 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Sturgeon said that he had lived in the neighborhood for 38 years, liked the neighborhood ambiance and wanted to maintain it. He felt the proposed house would be lovely, but that it was wrong for the area. In addition, he felt that, if the Height Variation was granted, the whole neighborhood would soon be all two-story structures. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. Sturgeon if he was against change. Mr. Sturgeon said he was very much against change in the neighborhood, especially when the change was for monetary profit. Mr. Richard Hanson, 5430 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hanson indicated that he had lived in the neighborhood for 33 years and that he also owned the property at 5431 Bayridge Road. He noted that there had been additions to neighborhood homes during that time, but that they had been tastefully done, were not as large as the proposed project, and did not conflict with the character of the area. He believed this house was beautiful, but that it was totally out of character with the neighborhood and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 4 0 0 urged the Commission to deny the Height Variation. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Hanson his opinion of the maximum size of additions which should be allowed in this neighborhood. Mr. Hanson replied that he couldn't give an exact square footage figure, since he believed size wasn't the main issue, rather it was architectural style. Commissioner Ferraro asked Mr. Hanson if he could see the subject house from his home. Mr. Hanson said he could not, but that he could see it while driving down the street. Mr. Stewart Widoff, 5502 Graylog, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Widoff informed the Commission that he had lived in the neighborhood for 23 years. He was opposed to the proposed addition because he believed that the large two-story house with a cantilevered deck built over an extreme slope of 35% or more was detrimental to the environment and may be unsafe. He wondered if there had been a geological study because there had been slippage on other properties in the area. Vice Chairman Mowlds assured Mr. Widoff that the deck would not create a safety hazard since it would be cantilevered only 61 over the slope. Commissioner Ferraro asked Mr. Widoff about the slippage he had mentioned and Mr. Widoff said it was on Bayridge Road many years ago, but he did not know the details. Commissioner Wang asked Mr. Widoff if he could see the subject property form his house and he said no. Director Bernard clarified that the City requires appropriate geology to be submitted before any building permit would be issued. Ms. Sonia Grindle, 5337 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Grindle indicated that she had grown up in the neighborhood and had recently moved back. She was opposed to the project because she felt the architectural style was out of character with the area, even though it was a beautiful house. She also felt it was too big, compared with the small homes on the surrounding streets, and conflicted with the semi -rural neighborhood with lots of trees and open space. She was also concerned with increased traffic and parking in the cul-de-sac because local children play in the cul- de-sac. She also wondered how many people would be living in the house. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Ms. Grindle what size house would be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 5 • appropriate. Ms. Grindle answered that, since the average square footage of most of the surrounding homes was 1,600 square feet, perhaps 3,000 to 3,500 square feet would be acceptable. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Ms. Grindle if she opposed two-story additions and she said that she did not, as long as views were not obstructed and the architectural style was compatible. Ms. Grindle added that, when she lived in the area as a child, a hill was damaged twice by rain, but she was not sure if slippage was an issue on this particular lot. Commissioner Hayes asked the size of Ms. Grindle's lot and Ms. Grindle replied that it was 50' x 1001, with part of her property sloping into the canyon below. Ms. Yvonne Goppert, 5507 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Goppert reported that she had lived in her home for 34 years. She stressed that the trees which are now partially concealing the subject home might not always be present and their absence would increase the visibility of the house. She indicated that she represented a large contingent of neighbors, mostly on Bayridge Road and that she felt the exotic architectural style and massive size were not compatible with the neighborhood of small single - story tract homes in lower Grandview. She disagreed with Page 5 of the Staff Report which stated that the addition was in character with the neighborhood and that the proposed articulation would reduce the bulk of the structure as viewed from the street and adjacent properties. Ms. Goppert distributed photos to the Commission to illustrate the typical home in the area. She commented that the neighborhood had remained essentially the same for 38 years and provided the closest thing to affordable housing on the Peninsula, making it possible for young families to move into the neighborhood. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked where Ms. Goppert's home was in relationship to the subject property and if she was against any type of home additions. Ms. Goppert responded that her home was above the subject house on the same street, about 10 to 15 houses away, and that she was not opposed, to additions, adding that there are many one-story expansions on their street which she thought were appropriate. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Ms. Goppert if her house had been enlarged and she said she had transformed her garage into a family room and added a new garage. When Commissioner Ferraro asked Ms. Goppert to elaborate on the photos she distributed, Ms. Goppert explained that each PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 6 Commissioner had received a photo of a different house in the neighborhood, all representative of the style and size of the average house in the original tract. Vice Chairman Mowlds made a general statement regarding the Code Standards under which the Planning Commission operates, stating that the Commission was unable to dictate the style of a house, unlike the Homeowners Association in the cities of Rolling Hills or Palos Verdes Estates. In the neighboring cities, the landowner automatically becomes a member of the Homeowners Association when they purchase their property and they are obligated to abide by the CC&R's, which include architectural requirements. All architectural control is handled by the Homeowners Association in those two cities. However, that was not the case in Rancho Palos Verdes and he asked the speakers to keep these facts in mind in making their comments. Mr. Al Roderick, 5 Rollingwood Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA. Mr. Roderick reported that he was also representing the landowners at 1, 2, and 7 Rollingwood Drive, properties which he understood, according to the Staff Report, were visited by Staff. He said that the Staff Report specifically mentioned that there would be a slight loss of view from 7 Rollingwood Drive and, to his knowledge no one ever visited that site. He also mentioned his own view was impaired and, even though the Rollingwood Drive residences are not in Rancho Palos Verdes, he believed a compromise was in order to protect their views. Mr. Roderick had no objection to the construction except that the size should be reduced. He asked the Planning Commission to remember that the Rancho Palos Verdes residents do live and vote in the City so he believed they deserved consideration so that everybody is happy and to avoid everyone in the area from applying for second -story additions. Chairman Alberio pointed out that it had been his experience during his tenure as a Planning Commissioner that a balance is always sought to protect the rights of everyone involved in a project. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded to Mr. Roderickfs comments, stating that she tried to visit his property on three separate occasions during the day and did visit the property at 7 Rollingwood. She noted that there was view impairment from the edge of the property, but, generally, Staff considered the primary viewing area from inside or directly outside the structure. Unfortunately, she was unable to make contact with the resident. Mr. Roderick asked Ms. Klopfenstein how she gained access to the property and she said there was construction in progress and the contractor let her go through the side yard. Chairman Alberio confirmed that sometimes it is hard for Staff to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 7 arrange access for site visits. Mr. Dean Herbrandson, 5519 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Herbrandson opposed the project based on neighborhood compatibility, stating that he purchased his very small, 1,300 square foot home three years ago because all the houses were built in a similar style and he liked the close-knit community. He noted that he had grown up in Manhattan Beach and witnessed the progression from single -story to two-story houses built to maximum on each lot, which resulted in a loss of privacy. He did not want the same thing to happen in his current neighborhood. He felt that the proposed project was not compatible with the neighborhood because it would look very massive. Even though he would not be able to see the proposed house from his home, he would see the back of the house from Silver Spur Road every day on the way to work. He cited the General Plan's Community Attitude Survey, which indicated that 81% of the citizens support development standards to maintain neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Herbrandson provided photographs showing homes in three sections of the City, Island View, Upper Grandview and, Lower Grandview (his neighborhood). He felt that the proposed house would only fit into Island View, a community with large homes on large lots with lots of open space. When Chairman Alberio told Mr. Herbrandson that this was a large lot, over 20,000 square feet, Mr. Herbrandson said that most of the lot was not developable since it descended into a canyon. He added that he was not against all development and, if the house remained one story and no special applications were required, he would have no objection to the project. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked the size of Mr. Herbrandson's lot and how large did he think an appropriate house would be for the Matharuls lot. Mr. Herbrandson said his own lot was approximately 60' x 1001 and he felt that the correct size for the house on the Matharuls lot could be calculated by determining the size of the flat portion of the lot and then leaving 410 of the remaining flat area as open space. Chairman Alberio replied that this would be more restrictive than the City's Code. Mr. Herbrandson said that even though the proposed addition complied with the Code requirements for open space, he felt that a visual inspection revealed that neighborhood compatibility was not being maintained. He believed that since the lot's level area was so small that using the gross lot area to calculate open space was a flawed concept. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 8 Commissioner Ferraro asked Mr. Herbrandson if he was aware that they will still have 82% open space. Mr. Herbrandson said that it was 82% of the total area of the lot size, not of the level area. Therefore, the open space that would be left on the building pad would be much smaller. Ms. Vicki Scrimger, 26202 Birchfield, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Scrimger said that she had grown up in the area and owned a home of her own for the last 22 years in the same neighborhood. She indicated that she had almost doubled the size of her home from 1,250 square feet to 2,250 square feet during the time that she had owned it. Chairman Alberio asked the size of her lot. Ms. Scrimger answered that it was 50' x 100' and she explained that her addition had stayed under the 16' height limit and was built on the back of the house to remain compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Scrimger said that she was not against change and approved of the architectural style of the proposed addition, but that she objected to the large size of the addition. She felt a maximum size house in her neighborhood should be 3,000 to 3,500 square feet and noted that the proposed project would be almost double that size when complete. She also mentioned that in the late 1980's many trees in the area were lost to disease, so foliage should not necessarily be depended upon for screening. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:45 P.M. and reconvened at 9:02 P.M. Mr. Yogi Matharu (applicant's son), 5303 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Matharu explained that the flat pad on the lot is 1,100 square feet in size and the proposed house would only cover 26% of that 1,1000 square feet, which was still well below the Code maximum of 50%. With respect to privacy, he believed that the house was oriented on the pie -shaped lot in such a way that they would not be looking into anyone's yard, even from the second story. He stated that his family had made many compromises to meet all the needs of the interested parties. Ms. Patty Woods, 26209 Basswood Avenue, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Woods reported that she had originally written a letter in opposition to this addition but, after looking at the plans carefully, she wrote another letter retracting the first. She felt that Mr. McNamara was a very good writer, but a lot of what he wrote was fiction and that he had worked very hard distributing form letters. She stated that she was looking forward to a variety of architecture in neighborhood and believed the Matharus had PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 9 9, 0 provided a beautiful design. Chairman Alberio asked Ms. Woods why she had changed her mind. Ms. Woods replied that Mr. McNamara had commented about air flow, people peering down into bathroom windows, and the fact that this home was massive home and would start a snowball effect to flood the neighborhood with other massive homes. She said that, at first, she believed his information as fact. Then her husband talked to the owners of the property and looked at the blueprints and she walked and drove down the street, they changed their minds and decided that each addition should be investigated on an individual basis. She stated that she was in favor of change but not all of the past additions in the neighborhood were attractive and she felt this addition would be an asset to the street. Ms. Woods mentioned that further development in the neighborhood was beneficial because landscaping often cleared out scorpions and rattlesnakes present near the canyons. Ms. Mori West, 26441 Silver Spur Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. West noted that she was probably the first speaker who would actually be able to see the addition from her home and she and her husband were in favor of the project. She indicated that their view would not be blocked and that they believed the location on the end of the cul-de-sac was the perfect position for this house, although it might appear too large if it were located on a straight street. Mr. Tom Ramsey (representing the Silver Spur Beautification. Association), 5313 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Ramsey said he had his wife had owned their home, two doors from the subject property, for 11 years. He commended the applicant for his efforts in gathering input from the neighbors. He felt that the addition would be an asset in the neighborhood of 40 -year old tract houses. Mr. George Kettel, 5303 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Kettel stated that he had lived in his home for 14 years. He was in full support of the structure and would welcome seeing more of the house if the trees were not present any longer. Mr. Kettel believed the neighborhood needed change and that the beautiful house would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Cyrus Irani, 5312 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Irani indicated that he had lived for five years in the cul-de-sac, almost directly across from the applicant's property and that he had been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for about 30 years. He believed the addition was architecturally compatible and believed it would enhance the neighborhood and increase property value. He noted that other cities on the peninsula have different PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 10 • -0 architectural styles side by side and the neighborhoods are attractive. He mentioned that the applicants were very mindful of their neighbors and had compromised based on upon discussions with other residents. Mr. David McCrary (representing the Silver Spur Beautification Association), 5507 Elmbank Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. McCrary informed the Commission that he grew up in this neighborhood and had been back for about six months. He believed that change was inevitable, that the proposed addition was well designed to be a beautiful asset to the neighborhood and had never known of anyone being more considerate of their neighbors in planning a project. Because the houses in the area were built in the 1950's by someone developing a lot of property for little money, the houses were boxlike and he looked forward to homes that were architecturally diverse, noting that not all the past additions had enhanced the neighborhood. In an attempt to maintain community pride, property values and the rural, family nature of the neighborhood with single-family homes, he and 40 other neighbors had formed the Silver Spur Beautification Association and that there had been two meetings in the last two weeks. Mr. Tom McCrary (representing the Silver Spur Beautification Association), 5507 Elmbank Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. McCrary reported that he was originally against the addition because he thought views would be impaired; however, upon being convinced that this was not the case and that all the City's requirements were met, he changed his mind and now believed that the house would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas T. Chan, 5345 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Chan mentioned that he lived a few houses away from applicant and that he thought the home would be beautiful. He was sorry to see the situation turn into what he thought was a war about people of different ethnicity and hope that the neighborhood would once again be united and peaceful. Mr. Chan said he had never met as nice a neighbor as Tom Matharu and appreciated his efforts to accommodate everyone's concerns. He did not believe that the City would become overbuilt, as was mentioned regarding Manhattan Beach, because Rancho Palos Verdes had ordinances, such as the 50% open space requirement, and a Planning Commission and City Council that regulated development. In regard to the letters received, he noted that many who support the project wrote one letter per home, compared with many who oppose, who wrote a separate letter from each member of the family. He urged the Commission to accept the recommendation of the Planning Staff, who had done an excellent job. Ms. Jessica Irani, 5312 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Irani, who lives across the street from the subject property, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1094 PAGE 11 agreed with what her husband and previous speakers had said. She indicated that she was a volunteer Neighborhood Watch Captain for lower Bayridge Road and had talked to many people on the street, and on Birchfield Drive. She indicated that she spoke for some of those people who would see the proposed addition and were in favor, but were not present at the meeting, when she expressed her appreciation for the Matharus' consideration of their neighbors. Mr. Jack Graux, 5317 Rolling Ridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Graux indicated that he had lived below and adjoined the subject property for well over 40 years and that he believed the addition would be an asset to the area. Ms. Helen Graux, 5317 Rolling Ridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Graux reported that she and her husband bought their property, originally 9-1/2 acres in size, in 1947, long before the Grandview tract was developed. She stated that they would be able to see the back of the addition and there were in full support of the proposed project. Ms. Ann Dickson (representing the Silver Spur Beautification Association) , 5507 Graylog, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Dickson stated that she had lived in the area since 1960 and was grieved that the situation had become so emotional. She said that she did not feel comfortable speaking in opposition to her friends and neighbors who are against the project and are sincerely worried. She appealed to the Planning Commission to make a quick decision and to her neighbors in opposition, who she respects, to look again in their hearts and realize that people from other cities and other countries should be welcomed in order to make the neighborhood grow and prosper. Ms. Wai Sing Chow, 5345 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Chow informed the Commission that she had lived five houses away from the Matharus for the last three years. She believed that the neighborhood needed improving and that this addition would do just that. Mr. Van Der Schyff, 5536 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Van Der Schyff expressed support for the applicant and commended him for the wonderful enhancement to the neighborhood. Mr. Van Der Schyff believed that the style of the homes in this area could not be considered true architecture, but rather as "tract, cookie - cutter architecture" and that the neighborhood was run down and needed improvement. He concurred with the previous speakers and felt that since the project met City guidelines, he was strong in support of the addition. Mr. Milos Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Veteska added his support to the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 12 Ms. Irena Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. In response to Chairman Alberio Is comment, Mrs. Veteska confirmed that they had been attempting to enlarge their home for the last two years and she hoped the Commission approved this project because the neighborhood needs improvement. She was unhappy about the discouraging attitude in the neighborhood and hoped that this would improve also. Mr. Mike McNamara, appellant rebuttal. Mr. McNamara restated that the focus should be on the goals of the City. He indicated that he was not against change and had remodeled his own home, but believed the relevant question was if, under the law which was passed by the people on November 7, 1989, this project should be approved and if it did not comply with the law, it should not be approved. He disagreed that the Commission could not regulate the appearance of a house when a second story is added on because the law says that, when a second story is added, the house must be compatible with the immediate neighborhood compatibility. He noted that the law also states that second stories cannot be added to homes that are on promontories and he believed this house was on a promontory. He read the definition of a promontory from the Height Variation Guidelines as "a prominent mass of land overlooking a lowland" and stated that this applies to the subject residence. Mr. McNamara did not agree that the articulation softens the massiveness of the proposed house. He urged the Planning Commission to enforce the law and deny the addition. Vice chairman Mowlds disagreed with McNamara's definition of a promontory and said that a promontory is a site where one has reached the highest elevation to which the City is part thereof. Mr. McNamara repeated that he was reading directly from the law and the guidelines and procedures for putting the law into effect and referred to Page 8 on the fourth line. Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that he was familiar with the document from which Mr. McNamara was reading, but indicated that he was referring to past cases before the Commission. With respect to neighborhood compatibility, Mr. Mowlds asked Mr. McNamara if he was opposed to second story additions. Mr. McNamara said that each project had to analyzed individually with respect to the totality of the design to determine compatibility. He felt that it was difficult to establish general rules. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if McNamara's believed that compatibility could be achieved only by stacking a second story that was of 1950's design on top of a 1950's first floor. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 13 Mr McNamara replied that this was not what he had said. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. McNamara why he believed the articulation did not soften the proposed structure. Mr. McNamara responded that the many protuberances (porches, columns, towers) had no effect on the massiveness of the house. Vice Chairman Mowlds referred to a local architectural firm, Edward Carson Beall, who defined articulation as balconies, columns, and different heights in the roof structure. In light of this definition, Mr. Mowlds felt this proposed house was well articulated. Mr. McNamara agreed that it was articulated, but he did not feel that this articulation reduced the apparent bulk and mass of the structure. Ms. Becky Christensen, applicant rebuttal. Ms. Christensen recognized that opposition to the project came from people who are sincere and the applicant recognizes that sincerity. She listed the main objections from the opposition to be the size of the addition, possible view impairment, and neighborhood compatibility. In reference to size, she noted that the Code would allow up to an 8,000 square foot house for the RS -4 lot and, since this proposed addition is less than 6,000 square feet, if built as a single - story, the Matharus would not have come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Christensen said that Mr. McNamara referred to the law, City Code Section 17.02.040, which cites eight factors, four of which relate to view. She stressed that, as confirmed by many of Mr. Matharuls neighbors, this addition was redesigned to avoid blocking anyone's view, including building a second story rather than further enlarging the first story. With respect to neighborhood compatibility, she pointed that there was a very wide divergence in interpretation of compatibility, but she believed that compatibility does not equal uniformity. Commissioner Vannorsdall corrected Ms. Christensen's statement that a maximum of 8,000 square feet could be built on this lot because a structure would not be allowed over the extreme slope portion of the lot, but acknowledged that this had no bearing on her arguments. Vice Chairman Mowlds questioned Mr. Wilkens, the architect, regarding the possibility of placing obscured glass in the second story bathroom windows to ensure the privacy of adjacent neighbors. Mr. Don Wilkens, applicant rebuttal. Mr. Wilkens said he did not believe privacy was a factor because the Matharuls house was screened with a very large hedge grove that was higher than the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 14 proposed second story, but said that obscured glass could be installed in the upstairs bathrooms, if necessary. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt comfortable allowing Staff to determine if obscured glass would be necessary in the upstairs bathrooms and, to condition the approval to include this requirement. Commissioner Wang asked the applicant, Mr. Matharu is the trees in front of his home belonged to the City. Mr. (Pritam) Tom Matharu , applicant rebuttal. Mr. Matharu said that the trees did belong to the City. Commissioner Wang wondered if the City had plans to remove them. Chairman Alberio responded that they might be removed if the roots were tearing up the sidewalks, but in that case, smaller ones would probably be planted. Commissioner Hayes moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (7-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that he could determine no reason to deny the addition and that the immediate neighbors who would see it from their own homes were not objecting. He did, however, understand the feeling of the people opposing the project. With respect to views, he pointed out that a view is established from either inside a house, or from outside the house, but no more than 5' from the structure and it seemed that no views were being blocked. Since the architect indicated that the applicant would be willing to put obscured glass in the upstairs bathroom windows, he would be in favor of a motion to approve. Commissioner Hayes stated that she found no view impairment from the properties she visited and believed that these are small, functional, post World War II homes which would be greatly improved with some enhancement. She noted that the City's General Plan "promotes improvement to properties that will enhance the visual quality of existing neighborhoods while balancing and protecting the rights of residents within the neighborhood". She believed that no rights were being violated and that privacy of the adjacent neighbors was being considered. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's decision to approve the proposed second - story addition. Chairman Alberio asked for comments from other Commissioners. Commissioner Ferraro stressed that it was difficult to balance PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 15 opposing viewpoints in a neighborhood to please everyone. She noted that Mr. and Mrs. Veteska testified on behalf of the applicant and they had received a denial of their proposed addition. However, Ms. Ferraro felt that the situation was different because Mr. and Mrs. Veteska would have had to build over an extreme slope with a substantial amount of grading and this addition would be built on an existing flat pad. Mrs. Ferraro noted that the applicant had done a thorough job consulting with his neighbors, even to the extent of redesigning his project to protect the view of a neighbor. In visiting the neighborhood, Commissioner Ferraro said that she had noticed varying architectural styles and believed that they blended with the other homes. She did not feel the rural atmosphere was threatened by the proposed project. Commissioner Ferraro seconded Mrs. Hayes motion. Commissioner Whiteneck stated that he would vote in favor of the motion, as there did not seem to be any infringement on any surrounding homeowners. Commissioner Wang agreed with her fellow Planning Commissioners and felt that, since Mr. Matharu had communicated so well with his neighbors and the requirements of the City were being met, she would also be in favor of approval. Commissioner Vannorsdall discussed a Planning Conference he recently attended in Torrance in which the speaker determined that, the average homeowner favors a traditional family neighborhood in which the residents interact with each other. He did not see that this project interfered with this concept, therefore he was in favor of the motion for approval, even though he respected the goal of the homeowners in opposition to preserve the ambiance in their neighborhood. Chairman Alberio stated that he believed in balancing the rights of a property owner who wanted to develop his land with the rights of the neighbors. He wanted to make clear that Mr. and Mrs. Veteska's situation was quite different from this one and the decision made by the Commission at this meeting would have no bearing on their case. He noted that one of the letters received mentioned that previous CC&R's expired in 1981 and they might have applied if not for the expiration. Chairman Alberio indicated that Mr. Matharu's consultations with his neighbors were the most thorough that he had encountered and he stressed that in today's economy, it is not always possibly to move to a newer, larger home, but often homeowners must expand their current home. He concluded by saying that change is inevitable and even though Mr. McNamara was very eloquent, the opposing arguments were more convincing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 16 Director Bernard pointed out that a condition needed to be added regarding obscure windows, as deemed appropriate by Staff. Planning Administrator Petru asked if the added condition was agreeable to the maker and seconder of the motion. Commissioner Hayes and Commissioner Ferraro indicated their agreement with that condition. Commissioner Ferraro noted that one of the speakers said that the citizens' concerns should be taken into consideration because they live and vote in the City. However, she pointed out that the Planning Commission must not take into account how a person might vote in the future or the situation becomes political. The Planning Commission must base their decisions solely on their interpretations of the City's Development Code and General Plan. The motion passed (7-0) on a roll call. Chairman Alberio mentioned that there was a 15 -day appeal period before the Commission's action became final. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 10:20 P.M. and reconvened at 10:28 P.M. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) The Commission waived reading of the Staff Report. Director Bernard felt that even though the entire Staff Report would not be presented, some information should be provided to the Commission. Senior Planner Rojas stated that the special meeting planned for November 10, 1994, to discuss the equestrian issues, had been cancelled because of a lack of quorum of Planning Commissioners and that a letter was sent to all interested parties informing them that the Commission would be rescheduling a date for the special equestrian meeting at tonight's meeting but that the equestrian issue itself would not be discussed at tonight's meeting. Mr. Rojas also outlined some late developments regarding the equestrian issue. The City Manager's office, which is overseeing the proposed ordinance for horse licensing had scheduled hearings for the City Council for December but, based on requests from the Portuguese Bend Community Association, has since tabled hearings PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 17 until after the first of the year. Therefore, Staff felt it would be best, if possible, for the Planning Commission to forward their recommendations to the City Council before the end of the year so that Chapter 17.46 (the equestrian issue) revisions and the proposed horse licensing ordinance could go together to the City Council to reduce some of the confusion in the community about how the City is processing these revisions. However, the President of the Portuguese Bend Community Agsociation is also requesting that the special hearing before the Planning Commission on Chapter 17.46 be tabled until after the new year until they receive input on the equestrian issue from a questionnaire sent to their membership. If the commission is inclined to table discussion of Chapter 17.46 until after the first of the year, Staff recommends that the Commission continue with the Development Code, minus Chapter 17.46. Chapter 17.46 would then be discussed on a date to be determined this evening or at a future hearing. vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that all the Development Code except Chapter 17.46 be reviewed by the end of the December 13, 1994 meeting which would mean that another meeting would have to be scheduled between tonight's meeting and December 13. Then, Chapter 17.46 (the equestrian issue) could be tabled to a meeting to be held after the first of the year. Chairman Alberio thought that was reasonable and that possibly some of the problems identified at the previous meetings would be resolved from the information coming from the Portuguese Bend Community Association's survey. Commissioner Ferraro questioned the need for another hearing on the horse issue because there had been a great deal of testimony already presented from both sides at two previous hearings. Director Bernard explained that the majority of the people who had spoken before had been told there would be a special meeting dedicated to just the horse issue on November 10 and, since it was cancelled, they are still expecting another meeting. Commissioner Whiteneck wondered what specific information would be provided that the Planning commission did not already have. Director Bernard said that Staff did not know what specific information would be provided from the answers to the questionnaire, but that Staff had been told the information will be relevant and stressed that the Portuguese Bend Community Association president did not make the decision to table the discussion until after the first of the year but the City Manager received a request from the City Council members to table the issue until January of 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 18 0- A discussion ensued between Staff questionnaire being mailed to Association, the relevance of the might be possible to obtain a cop and the Commission regarding the the Portuguese Bend Community answers received, and whether it y of the questionnaire. Director Bernard replied that Staff could ask for a copy of the questionnaire but did not feel it was Staff's responsibility to review it. The commissioners agreed that they merely wanted to see it themselves. Senior Planner Rojas said that Sharon Hegetschweiler, president of the Portuguese Bend Community Association, indicated that the board was trying to determine the consensus among Association members as to whether they support or oppose horse licensing. Since the survey deals mostly with the City Council's upcoming decision on horse licensing, her paramount concern was that the Council hearings be tabled until after the first of the year. Chairman Alberio believed it would be advantageous to continue review of Chapter 17.46 (the equestrian issue) until after the first of the year because the Portuguese Bend Community Association's CC&Rls are very powerful and answers may be found in this document as well as in the answers to the questionnaire to enable the horse problems identified thus far to take care of themselves. Vice Chairman Nowlds suggested that a meeting date be scheduled to discuss the Articles VI through VIII of Title 17, and Title 16 before December 13, 1994. After much discussion and consideration of various dates, it was decided to reinstate the regular meeting of November 22, 1994, which was previously cancelled, to discuss only the Development Code. commissioner Hayes asked to be excused since she would be out of town on that evening. Director Bernard pointed out that a meeting also needed to be scheduled to discuss Chapter 17.46 (the equestrian issue) in January so that Staff had time to notice the meeting. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that the regular Planning commission meeting on January 10, 1995, be dedicated mostly to the horse issue and intentionally make the agenda light. The other Commissioners agreed. The Public Hearing had been continued and Chairman Alberio called the first speaker. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 19 Mr. Richard Bara, #1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bara informed the Commission that a friend gave him information about the new, second questionnaire, which was being sent out because the first questionnaire produced results which were unquantifiable so the second questionnaire would have only two or three "yes or no" questions. Mr. Bara thought it was a good idea to table the issue until January of 1995. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue noted that, since the Portuguese Bend Community is private, they may not have to provide a copy of the questionnaire to the Planning Commission. She asked the Commission to keep several things in mind when making a decision on the horse issue. It had been hinted by several speakers at the two previous hearings that the horse problem was a "family" fight; however, she pointed out that not all the horse owners live in the Portuguese Bend area, and not all the Portuguese Bend horse owners are members of the Community Association. Chairman Alberio asked Ms. Larue if she agreed this was a "family" problem. Ms. Larue said it seemed obvious that it was, listening to the testimony. She added that it was also a topic of historical importance in the community. The Commission then reviewed Articles I through V of Title 17. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that 17.02 was sent to the City Council and they rejected the Planning Commission's recommendation. It was Mr. Mowlds' opinion that the recommendation was sent in the wrong format. Staff had suggested that alternative language be provided to the Council and this still needed to be written. Commissioner Ferraro asked Mr. Mowlds if had suggestions. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that applications automatically come before the Planning Commission if: 1. An addition was more than 100% of the original residence 2. A second story addition was more than 75% of the existing first floor footprint 3. A garage was covered by a second story addition of more than 60% of the garage footprint He added that these percentages could be different. Commissioner Ferraro and Commissioner Hayes agreed with Mr. Mowlds' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 20 i suggestions. • Director Bernard thought that, possibly a percentage and a square footage should be provided, for example 100% or 3,000 square feet, whichever was less. Either way, it would go to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Rojas suggested that the square footage cap or 100% cap could be added to the maximum structure size category that is listed in the chart in Section 17.02.030. Planning Administrator Petru asked Vice Chairman Mowlds, in the phrase "75 % of the footprint", did he mean the "existing" footprint and he said yes, because it would be easier to trigger the review process. Director Bernard indicated that Staff would create the language and bring it back to the Planning Commission for review. 17.02.030 [Single Family Residential - Development Standards Charts Commissioner Hayes felt the chart should indicate that, on a corner lot, the side and a front setbacks should be the same. Senior Planner Rojas pointed out that most of the homes were built with a 10' setback from the property line. Vice Chairman Mowlds acknowledged the grandfathering but asked Staff how they felt about new houses on a corner lot having a 20' setback on the front and on the side. Planning Administrator Petru thought that would be acceptable. Vice Chairman Mowlds believed that the last word of Footnote 9 should be "district" instead of "zone". Senior Planner Rojas replied that it should be "zoning district". Vice Chairman Mowlds pointed out that "district" was used elsewhere in the Code and there should be consistency. Vice Chairman Mowlds inquired about "FAR" (Floor Area Ratio), and asked Staff to explain to the Commission how this ratio was covered in the Code so that there a maximum size house that can be built with a certain square footage. Planning Administrator Petru asked if he was requesting an example of how the Code would be applied and Mr. Mowlds said yes. 17.02.040(A)(1) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 21 Vice Chairman Mowlds believed the shaded areas in the diagrams should be labeled. Senior Planner Rojas replied that it could be labeled "pre - construction grade" and Mr. Mowlds said that would be acceptable. Senior Planner Rojas indicated that the diagrams might be moved to a separate page because the Code will be reprinted in a double column format. Commissioner Wang noted that in Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(a)(i), the word "feet" should be added after the number 1116". Senior Planner Rojas agreed to make the correction. 17.02.040(8)(1) (e)(vi) Senior Planner Rojas noted that the View Restoration Commission had reviewed this chapter, including portions under their sole purview and under the joint purview of the Planning Commission and View Restoration Commission. They did not suggest any changes to the joint purview section but they did suggest a change to this paragraph, which is under the Planning Commission's purview, which Staff believes is warranted, which clarifies the viewing area finding. The modified paragraph would read: "The proposed structure, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair view from the viewing area of another parcel. If the viewing area is located in a structure, the viewing area shall be located in a portion of a structure." Mr. Rojas explained that this clarified that a viewing area can involve a structure, as well as another part of the lot, in case it is an undeveloped lot. Vice Chairman Mowlds was unsure that the City was protecting views from undeveloped lots and Planning Administrator Petru said yes. Senior Planner Rojas asked for direction from the Planning Commission as to whether this suggestion from the View Restoration Commission should be incorporated into the Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Senior Planner Rojas if he thought it should be in the Code and Mr. Rojas said yes. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked the other members of the Commission if they had any objections and there were none. Commissioner Hayes suggested that in Sub -paragraph IX of the same section, which reads "the proposed structure does not cause an unreasonable infringement to the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences" that the phrase "or an intrusive visual PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 22 observation" be inserted because it was in the definitions and believed it would be a good idea to re-emphasize this idea in the Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Staff if they thought this was a good idea and Senior Planner Rojas said it was acceptable. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked the other members of the Commission if they had any objections and there were none. Chapter 17.04 (Multiple Family Residential (RM) Districts) Commissioner Hayes noted that the new street -side setback changes for new corner lots in Single Family Residential districts should also be incorporated for new Multiple Family Residential lots. Senior Planner Rojas said that all the 1115 foot" notations would become 1125". Vice Chairman Mowlds asked the other members of the Commission if they had any objections and there were none. Section 17.08.030(3) Home Occupation Standards Vice Chairman Mowlds thanked Staff for inserting the language into Paragraph "i", which allowed a secretary. Senior Planner Rojas stated that, actually, the City Attorney felt that the sentence which allows an outside employee should be deleted because it would be almost impossible to enforce and she felt complications would arise in conflict with the intent of Home Occupation Chapter. Vice Chairman Mowlds pointed out that, in reality, many of these Home occupations do, in fact, employ secretaries and he thought it would be a good idea to make the situation legal. Director Bernard explained that the Planning commission had the option to leave this sentence in. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked that it be left in and to point out the City Attorney's concerns to the City Council. Chapter 17.10 (Second Units) It was decided that this section would be reviewed at the next meeting because not all the Commissioners had this portion of the Code. 17.12 Commercial Districts PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 23 Vice Chairman Mowlds asked what the initials "CL, CN, CP, CR, and CG" were in the Commercial Standards Chart. Senior Planner Rojas explained and said a note could be inserted into the table that referenced the portion of the Code that lists the various allowed uses in each commercial district. Director Bernard suggested that a similar reference be made in the residential chart as well, to be more user friendly. 17.26. 040 (C) Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that the following phrase should be added to this section: "and shall be screened from view". Commissioner Hayes noted that if it wasn't already, the same phrase should be added to the appropriate commercial section. Director Bernard said that Staff would double check this. 17.26.040(F) Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested a clarification to this section. Because 65 dBa will be exceeded by street sweepers, there should be a special noise level for deliveries and mechanical equipment. Senior Planner Rojas explained that in the earlier stages of the Code revision process, there was an attempt to have different dBals but the direction from the Commission was to standardize everything at 65 dBa until the City adopts a noise ordinance. Commissioner Ferraro asked if there was a special noise level condition established for the Terraces Shopping Center at 45 dBa because of the houses at the back of the center. Chairman Alberio explained that the Terraces uses smaller sweepers on the upper parking lot and therefore noise levels were conditioned not to exceed 45 dBa. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that Staff recommended that this would be indicated on the Terraces' Conditional Use Permit. 17.28 Cemetery District ViceChairman Mowlds requested that language be added so that roof equipment is screened. Article IV 17.40.060(C)(3) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 24 Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if this was the section that would help prevent approval of a "Forrestal type" project again. Senior Planner Rojas explained that these were the overlay control districts that are very strict for any land that is within the overlay district, controlling the grading and the habitat. As an afterthought (not included in the section above), Commissioner Hayes suggested that the word "promontory" be included in the definitions. Chairman Alberio concurred and Senior Planner Rojas said this definition would be added. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the December 13, 1994, meeting. 2. COMMISSION - NONE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - NONE ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes, to adjourn. Motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:38 P.M. to the regular meeting on November 22, 1994. (A JDMIN#6 - MINI 1 09) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE 25