Loading...
PC MINS 19950314APPROVED 3/28/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 14, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M., by Chairman Mowlds at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chair Hayes. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro (arrived at 7:28 P.M.), Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds. ABSENT: None Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Assistant Planners de Freitas and Klopfenstein and Recording Secretary Drasco. Vice chair Hayes moved that Item 6 be removed from the Consent Calendar, seconded by commissioner Alberio. Approved (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Planning Administrator Petru noted that three late letters were received regarding Item 10. B. COMMISSION - None APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Approval was given item by item, as follows: 1. MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 1995. Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested the following changes: On page 13, in the first paragraph, remove the "Second word "that". On page 20 in the third paragraph, insert the missing word "had" before "no objections". On page 20 in the fifth paragraph, there is a blank for the second commissioner who dissented. After a discussion, it was determined that there was only one dissension and the vote would be change to (6-1). on page 19 in the third paragraph, "Chairman" Alberio should be changed to "Commissioner" Alberio. Commissioner Wang suggested the following changes: on page 5, at the end of the second line, remove the unnecessary word lithe" before the word "felt". On page 9 in the last sentence of the last, add the missing word "she" before "knew of". Vice Chair Hayes suggested the following changes: On page 4, on the fifth line of the last paragraph, the word "us" after "auxiliary" should be changed to "use". On page 10 on the third line in the first paragraph, the word "Council" should be changed to "County". On page 11 in the last sentence of the first paragraph, the word "surround" should be changed to "surrounding". On page 15 in the third paragraph, delete the second "was". On page 18 in the first sentence, add "of the" before the word fence. On page 19 in the last sentence of the fifth paragraph, add the word "was" after Commission. Vice Chair Hayes moved to accept the Minutes of January 24, 1995, as corrected, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved (6-0). 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 1995. Vice Chair Hayes suggested the following changes: on page 7, she requested that an additional sentence be added in the second paragraph from the bottom stating "Because Mr. Myers was given the full amount of space he requested, she felt he could give the ladies a separate rest room". Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the Minutes of February 14, 1995, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (5-0-1), with Commissioner Wang abstaining as she was not present at the February 14 meeting. 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1995. Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that the following change be made: On page 7 in the fourth paragraph, the sentence should read "Commissioner Vannorsdall stressed that any part of the second wall which would become part of the retaining wall would have to be engineered as such." Commissioner Wang moved to accept the Minutes of February 28, 1995, as corrected, seconded by seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 180 - TIME EXTENSION; Mr. Stanley Clarke, 10 Peppertree Drive. (FF) Commissioner Alberio moved that the Staff's Recommendation be accepted, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Planning Administrator Petru reported to the Commission that Staff had observed that week that the landowners were putting up PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 2 a framework over the trailer. Chairman Mowlds concurred, having recently visited the property. 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23912, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 661, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1727, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1743; Mr. Ducharme, 6324 Via Colinita. (KK) By acclamation, Chairman Mowlds noted that the Commission approved (6-0) the continuation of this item to the Planning Commission's regular meeting of April 25, 1995. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 155 -REVISION "A"; Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 Western Avenue. (CP) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and discussed as Item 7A. 7. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) By acclamation, Chairman Mowlds noted that the Commission approved (6-0) the continuation of this item to the Planning Commission's regular meeting of April 11, 1995. 7A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 155 -REVISION "A"; Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 Western Avenue. (CP) Requested Action: Modify the project's existing Conditions of Approval to increase the maximum downslope height for structures from 25'-0" to 30'-011. Commissioner Alberio pointed out, with concurrence from the other Commissioners, that there should have been a plan provided for this item and that, due to the late delivery of the Staff Report, the Commission did not have enough time to analyze the report. Planning Administrator Petru explained that the reason plans were not provided to the Planning Commission was because Conditional Use Permit No. 155 created a Master Plan that did not, at this point, include building elevations. She added that the actual building height envelope existed only in the conditions and offered to point out the location of the proposed future building footprints on the Master Plan on the wall. Ms. Petru also indicated that the item could be continued and the Commission could be provided with a reduced version of the Master Plan. Chairman Mowlds felt that he would prefer visiting the site and be provided with the reduced document mentioned by Ms. Petru. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 3 • By acclamation, Chairman Mowlds continued the item to the next meeting on March 28, 1995, and the applicant and Staff. i noted that the Commission regular Planning Commission asked for more information from Mr. John Resich (applicant), Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 Western Avenue, . Mr. Resich pointed out that the proposal before the Planning Commission was approved by the City Council in 1991 and the only change was a request for increase in the downslope building height from 25' to 301. Chairman Mowlds replied that the Commission would be happy to review the proposal when additional documentation was received. Mr. Resich reiterated that the request was only to modify one of the conditions of approval as set forth in the City approved Master Plan for cemetery zoning. Chairman Mowlds responded that Mr. Resich had the option of the Planning Commission voting on the proposal that evening without the Commission's review of additional documentation. Mr. Resich agreed that a better option would be to continue the item for two weeks until the Planning Commission had time to thoroughly review the project and that, with Staff's guidance, they would provide more information. Planning Administrator Petru confirmed that Staff would work with the applicant to obtain the documentation the Commission was seeking. CONTINUED BUSINESS 8. HEIGHT VARIATION 797 -APPEAL; Mr. and Mrs. Cahill, 2139 Summerland Drive. (KK) Requested Action: Approve the revised 1,588 square foot (originally 1,633 square feet) second story addition to a maximum height of 261- 0". The proposed second story has been reduced in size, setback 5'-0" from the lower story so that no portion of the addition would cantilever over the first floor, or encroach into the required 201- 0" front yard setback area, and the copper roof has been eliminated. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report and recommended approval, subject to conditions found in Exhibit A, since Staff found that the redesigned project would not impair any views and was compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Commissioner Ferraro arrived at this time (7:28 P.M.) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 4 Chairman Mowlds asked Staff if the applicant was aware of Staff's recommendation regarding deletion of the rear balcony. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein suggested that the applicant's architect answer the question. Chairman Mowlds asked the architect to come to the podium. Mr. Glenn White (project architect), 1152 West Amar, San Pedro, CA 90732. Mr. White indicated that the applicant was aware of the recommendation and said that, although they did wish to build the balcony as originally designed, they understood the Staff's concern regarding minimum open space. A discussion ensued between Chairman Mowlds and Planning Administrator Petru regarding whether or not the cantilevered balcony would be included in lot coverage used to calculate the remaining open space on the lot after development. This discussion determined that, whether or not supports came to the ground, if the space under the balcony was useable as a patio, for example, the balcony would be included in lot coverage. However, if there was a slope underneath, or a landscaped area (other than lawn), then it would not be counted towards lot coverage. Chairman Mowlds asked why a Minor Exception Permit was not submitted. Planning Administrator Petru agreed that a Minor Exception Permit could be submitted. However, Staff believed that, based on direction from Commission in the past, the Commission preferred to review the entire envelope when reviewing a Height Variation and said that this same direction led Staff to their recommendation. Chairman Mowlds concurred with Planning Administrator Petruls statement. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. White if applicant was in agreement with the deletion of the balcony. Mr. White replied that the applicant would prefer to keep the balcony. Chairman Mowlds asked if any Commissioner had questions about any other aspect of the project, other than the balcony. There were none. Planning Administrator Petru suggested another option. The trellis (198 square feet) at the front of the building could be eliminated and the rear balcony could be reduced in size slightly PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 5 to comply with minimum open space requirement. This alternative was not recommended as part of the Staff Report because Staff felt the trellis provided additional articulation to the front elevation of the residence. Vice Chair Hayes asked why the Commission could not approve the Minor Exception Permit that evening. Planning Administrator Petru explained that the public hearing had not been noticed for a reduction in open space. An application would have to be submitted, the review process would follow and a Minor Exception Permit would only come before the Planning Commission if there was an appeal. It was the consensus of the Commission to make a decision on the project that night. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. White if the landowner would prefer the balcony to the trellis. Mr. White felt that he might, because of the expanded view that would be available from the new balcony. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the minimum open space requirement was 50% minimum. She added that the current plan provided less than the minimum at 49.7% and that removing the balcony would increase the open space to 52%. Reducing the balcony and eliminating the trellis would result in open space closer to 50%. Chairman Mowlds suggested that the applicant be given the choice of (1) the trellis and no balcony or (2) no trellis and a reduced balcony, to be worked out with Staff. Planning Administrator Petru advised that the Conditions of Approval could be revised to reflect that option. Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staff's recommendation with an amended condition regarding the option of either the trellis or the balcony, thereby upholding the appeal and approving Height Variation 797, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion passed (7-0) on a roll call. Chairman Mowlds said that he would sign the Resolution that night and the 15 -day appeal period would begin the next day. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS• 9. VARIANCE NO. 386; Mr. and Mrs. McNerney, 6317 Via Colinita. (FF) Before the Staff Report was presented, Chairman Mowlds asked if the Palos Verdes Homes Association Art Jury had reviewed the project. I Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that it had not, but that the applicant was aware of this requirement. A discussion among the Commissioners led to a vote as to whether this item should be heard by the Planning commission before it had been reviewed by the Art Jury. A motion to hear the item that evening carried (5-2) by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alberio, Ferraro, Whiteneck, Wang, Vannorsdall NOES: Hayes, Mowlds The Staff Report was presented by Assistant Planner de Freitas. He stated that Staff believed that all findings necessary to grant the Variance could be made and recommended approval, subject to the conditions. He read a short letter of support from a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. McNerney, which had been received just prior to the announcement of this item. Chairman Mowlds opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Lamar Robinson (applicant's architect), 2360 Plaza Del Amo, #200, Torrance, CA 90503. Mr. Robinson explained that he and his clients had decided that the City would be approached before the Art Jury because often there are a lot of questions to be answered regarding City Codes whereas the Art Jury basically determined the acceptability of projects from an aesthetic point of view. He said that the applicant was requesting: (1) to extend the depth of the upper existing balcony from 51 to 121 to provide a larger area for entertaining; and, (2) to build a stairway and a dumbwaiter (to transport food and other kitchen items) from the two levels of the house down to the pool area. Commissioner Alberio said that, during his visit to the site, the applicant (Mr. McNerney) indicated that he wasn't intending to extend the balcony the entire length of the house. Mr. Robinson confirmed that the balcony would be reduced by about 50% in length. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 7 Mrs. Nedilka Mosich, 6433 Via Colinita, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Mosich said that she had lived in the neighborhood since 1962 and was aware of the history of the original construction of the subject house. In a discussion between Mrs. Mosich and Chairman Mowlds, during which she outlined possible past Development Code violations, the Chairman advised Mrs. Mosich that the City's Development Code, relative to the measurement of downslope height, had changed since this house was built in 1987. Mrs. Mosich felt that Staff Report's statement that the property currently could not be fully utilized for entertainment purposes was false as she had been a guest at the home and at one event which was attended by 100 people. Mrs. Mosich indicated that she had first been made aware of the project when she received notice of the hearing on February 22, 1995, and that she had also received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. McNerney. Even though she considered the McNerney's to be good neighbors and understood that they wanted to extend their balcony, she felt the larger deck would further invade her privacy, stating that, even now, she could see them and hear conversations from their home above hers. Commissioner Alberio stated that, looking down at Mrs. Mosich's home from the McNerney balcony, he surmised that her privacy was already being invaded. Commissioner Ferraro reported that she could not see Mrs. Mosich's home from the subject property, because of foliage planted along the rear property line. Mrs. Mosich responded that she had tried to grow foliage to protect her privacy, but had been asked several times by the previous owner of the McNerney home to cut it down. She reported that Assistant Planner de Freitas had taken photographs of the vegetation and Planning Administrator Petru indicated that they were on the photo board being passed around to the Commissioners. Chairman Mowlds asked Mrs. Mosich if she read the Staff Report and she said that she had, just that night. There was further discussion between Chairman Mowlds and Mrs. Mosich regarding Code changes since 1989 regarding measuring building heights. Chairman Mowlds and Mrs. Mosich also discussed the allowed height of her foliage and it was determined that it could be allowed to grow higher than 16' or. the ridgeline of her house as long as it did not impair the neighbor's view. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 8 Chairman Mowlds asked Staff if Mrs. Mosich had a Covenant to Protect Views on her property. Planning Administrator Petru stated that she could not be sure without checking the City's files. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to continue this item, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Planning Administrator Petru advised that in order to avoid re - noticing, the item should be continued to a date certain. Chairman Mowlds asked for a vote to continue the item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 1995. He also asked the Commissioners making and seconding the motion if they would agree to that amendment and they did. The motion failed because of a tie (3-3-1) AYES: Vannorsdall, Hayes, Wang NOES: Alberio, Ferraro, Mowlds ABSTENTIONS: Whiteneck (since he was unable to visit the property due to hospitalization) Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staff's recommendation No. 1, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Planning Administrator Petru asked if that approval would include the balcony across the entire house. Chairman Mowlds clarified that the balcony would be allowed across approximately half of the length of the house, (at least 5' past the stairs to maintain clearance around the stairs). The amended motion passed (6-0-1) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Alberio, Ferraro, Hayes*, Wang, Vannorsdall, Mowlds NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Whiteneck *Commissioner Hayes changed her vote from no to yes after learning that the Planning Commission's approval was contingent on the Art Jury's approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 9 Assistant Planner de Freitas pointed out that Condition No. 9 would be added that approval of this project was contingent upon approval of the Palos Verdes Homes Association Art Jury and documentation of the Art Jury's approval would have to submitted to the City by the applicant prior to the issuance of the building permit. Upon inquiry from Chair Mowlds, Assistant Planner de Freitas mentioned that Condition No. 4 would be modified to indicate that the project shall be constructed in conformance to the revised plan which shall reflect the reduced -size deck configuration, as approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Mowlds stated that he would sign the Resolution that evening with the amended conditions of approval and that a 15 -day appeal period would begin the next day. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:10 P.M. and reconvened at 8:24 P.M. 10. VARIANCE NO. 387, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1791; Mr. and Mrs. Milan Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report and recommended approval, subject to the suggested Conditions of Approval, because Staff felt that the current redesign of the project addressed all the Planning Commission's previous concerns regarding view impairment and construction onto an extreme slope. Chairman Mowlds Opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Gil Groisman, (applicant's architect), 25042 Vermont Drive, Newhall, CA 91321. Mr. Groisman explained that the current redesign took into consideration the direction from the Planning Commission. Working with the contours of the lot, the proposed addition would be built on the existing pad area with only certain portions of the residence cantilevered over the extreme slope, thereby, attaining the landowner's goal to provide bedrooms on one floor. Commissioner Alberio mentioned that the existing retaining wall between the subject property and the next door neighbor was to be removed and replaced. He wanted to make sure there would be no additional excavation, specifically asking Mr. Groisman how the foundation would be built for dumbwaiter/elevator and whether large equipment would be brought onto the steep slope of property, causing potential damage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 10 Mr. Groisman explained that installation of the hydraulic dumbwaiter was very simple, requiring no foundation excavation, and that it would be attached to the cement footing used to support the rest of the house. Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Groisman if he would be willing to pull back the foundation from the top of the slope if it was determined during construction that such a change was necessary to avoid building on the area of more than 35 percent slope. Mr. Mowlds also suggested that a proportional increase in the cantilever would be permitted in such an event. Mr. Groisman said he would accept this condition. Mr. Dale Eleniak, (applicant's attorney), 225 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 240, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266. Mr. Eleniak, reading from P.C. Resolution 94-50, stated that the reason for the Commission's previous denial of this application was because "the overall design and uncommon support which is not common to the area, as a result of that, would, therefore, create an appearance of the structure to be uncommon with other homes in the area. In addition to that, the supported construction methods were not appropriate for the sloping topography." Chairman Mowlds disagreed with Mr. Eleniak that the caisson foundation design was the main reason for denial by the Planning Commission nor was this the main reason the Commission's decision was upheld by City Council. He emphasized that the primary reason for denial was that previous plans involved building on a slope of 35 percent or more. Mr. Eleniak said that the current plans, which were supported by Staff's recommendation for approval, eliminated the caissons in the slope, thereby nullifying the objection that this addition would be uncommon with other properties in the area and made it unnecessary to build or grade on the extreme slope. He indicated that the grading quantities had been reduced from 287 to 197 cubic yards and that most of the grading would take place underneath the existing footprint. Mr. Eleniak also pointed out that the project would not interfere with Resource Management Zones 3 or 9, identified in the General Plan, in that the vegetation and contours of the hills would be maintained. He further stated that, although view impairment was not an issue, the revised plans reduced the height of the roof terrace by an additional 1-1/2 feet. Mr. Eleniak urged approval by the Commission and pointed out that the Veteska's had shown that they were good citizens by being willing to work with the City over the last two years. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 11 Mr. Stewart Widoff, 5502 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Widoff reported to the Commission that he had lived in the home next door to the subject property for 23-1/2 years and had a view of the canyon and the L.A. basin from several rooms in his house, as well as the back yard. It was his opinion, after viewing the latest drawings and temporary frame silhouette, that his view would be impaired. He detailed the history of the project, stating that four sets of plans had been submitted and made reference to previous denials by the Planning Commission and the City Council in 1993 and 1994. Mr. Widoff's objections to the project were as follows: (1) View impairment and loss of privacy. Mr. Widoff stated that the new plans indicated a sun deck with a 3 -foot high glass guard rail which would block his canyon view, especially when furniture, umbrellas, potted plants, etc. were added. He was also concerned about invasion of his privacy because the sun deck would be in line with his patio and living room. (2) Building on an extreme slope and resulting environmental damage. Mr. Widoff felt that allowing construction on a slope of 350 of more would be detrimental to the adjacent canyon. He objected to cantilevered construction on the side of the hill and the grading of 197 cubic yards, which he felt would cause hillside slippage, particularly in the event of an earthquake or heavy rain. He also believed that the proposed driveway leading to a subterranean 3 -car garage could damage the hillside. He mentioned the possibility of the City being placed in jeopardy of legal action if earth slippage occurred in the future. (3) Size of the addition. Mr. Widoff stated that the proposed additional 2,900 square footage was twice the size of his house and was contrary to the General Plan, Resource Management Zones 3 and 9 and Chapter 17.50 of the City Development Code. Mr. Mowlds indicated that he felt the grading was not excessive and stated that grading for a garage could be approved at Staff level for up to 500 cubic yards. Mr. Widoff asked how the hillside would be affected by the proposed grading and if'a geology report would be required. Chairman Mowlds said that the grading would be carefully engineered and that there would be a geology report reviewed by the City before a building permit would be issued. Mr. Mowlds went on to explain that cantilevered construction was common and that damage to the hills during construction would be unlikely. Mr. Michael McNamara, 5402 Bayridge Roadi Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. McNamara urged the Planning Commission to deny the Variance PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 12 • to build over the extreme slope and the request for the Grading Permit for three reasons: (1) Mr. McNamara did not feel this project was necessary for the applicants to preserve and enjoy their property rights. He felt that development should be reasonable and the home was already 2,600 square feet in size and, with the proposed addition, it would be 5,500 square feet. He considered this to be a huge house for the neighborhood, especially on an extreme slope. (2) Mr. McNamara felt that the proposed construction would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and the property and improvements in the area because views would be impaired for two adjacent neighbors. He also believed there was a possibility that the extreme slope would fail from the removal of almost 200 cubic yards of earth, the building of a very heavy house on the existing foundation, and/or further complications from rain or an earthquake. He felt that the City might be liable for damage to the applicants' and surrounding neighbors' property if the project was allowed to proceed. (3) Mr. McNamara believed that the granting of these approvals would be contrary to the General Plan as one of the requirements is that any additions must not damage the visual quality of the neighborhood and visual relationships of the sites in the neighborhood. He felt the proposed addition was not in compliance with these standards. Mr. Richard Hanson, 5430 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hanson stated that he lived above Mr. Widoff's property. He asked for clarification of the height of the addition, saying that he might or might not be opposed to the addition if the current frame silhouette indicated the proper height. Commissioner Alberio believed that the flags had slipped down because of windy conditions and no longer properly indicated the proposed height. Assistant Planner de Freitas explained the drawing on the wall to Mr. Hanson, pointing out that the dashed line formed the outline of the existing structure and that the height measurement at 131- 511 was taken from the average elevation of the front property line. Mr. Hanson asked how these facts related to the current height of the flags. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 13 Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that he could not answer that questions because he had not measured the current height of the flags. He showed Mr. Hanson the proposed plan and marked it to show the existing dwelling and the proposed addition. Several Commissioners, Assistant Planner de Freitas and Mr. Hanson conferred at the drawings and Mr. Hansonfs conclusion was that the new addition would be higher than the flags, but lower than the existing house. However, he still believed there would be view impairment unless the addition was lowered to the current level of the flags. Mr. Tom McCrary, 5507 Elmbank Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. McCrary was in support of the proposed addition because he felt that the close coordination between the City and the applicant had resulted in a design that would be sensitive to the neighborhood, safe and legal. Mr. David McCrary, (representing the Silver Spur beautification Association -President), 5507 Elmbank Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. McCrary urged approval of the project because he believed that it was important for Mr. and Mrs. Veteska to redesign their home so that their baby's bedroom would be on the same level as the master bedroom. He felt that they had redesigned the project until it met the requirements of the City. He believed that the remodeled home would be an asset to the neighborhood and would increase property values in the area. Ms. Anne Dickson, 5507 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Dickson reported that she lived next door to Mr. and Mrs. Veteska and was very much in favor of the project, having attended prior hearings and being familiar with the previous designs. Ms. Eleanor Fallace, 5513 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Fallace recalled the original construction of the Veteska home and the Dickson home next door, and remembered concerns because that the slope was so steep that the contractor's drilling equipment kept rolling down the hill and had to be anchored to her tree. Yet, she pointed out that those houses had held up well over the years and she urged approval of the proposed addition because she anticipated no problems. Mr. Derek Tillemans, 5528 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Tillemans agreed with the previous speakers and was in support of the project, as along as all the City's building and safety requirements were met. Mrs. Christina Tillemans, 5528 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Tillemans agreed with the previous speakers and supported the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 14 Mr. Yogi Matharu, 5303 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Matharu stated that, despite the size of the existing house, the Veteskas could not live in it comfortably the way it was currently configured. He added that they have tried to look after everyone's interests and under the City's direction, have redesigned the project four times. He believed that the present design adequately addressed the previous concerns and he supported the project. Mr. Tom Matharu, 5303 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Matharu thanked the Planning Commission for approving his own recent project. He reported that he had read the Veteska Staff Report and felt that Mr. and Mrs. Veteska had put forth a lot of effort to comply with the City's requirements and that this was proven by the recommendation for approval by Staff. Mr. Matharu believed that the neighborhood needed improvement and noted that the houses were 35 to 40 years old, with small bedrooms and inadequate electric power. He believed that many owners in the neighborhood were renting their houses and that the structures were not being taken care of properly. In addition, because of current economic conditions, many people were remodeling their present homes rather than moving. He believed that the neighborhood would be enhanced and that property values would increase if the project was allowed to go forward and he further encouraged approval of similar projects in the future. Mr. Cyrus Irani, 5312 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Irani, a resident of the neighborhood for 30 years, said that he had read Staff Report, was in favor of the project and urged the Planning Commission to approve it. He felt it was clear that the Veteskas had complied with Staff's recommendations, including reducing the height of the house and eliminating windows from the north side of the house to protect the neighbor's privacy, etc. Mr. A.B. Van Der Schyff, 5536 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Van Der Schyff felt confident that architectural engineering had progressed enough in the last 40 years that the fear that the house might collapse into canyon was unfounded. He added that if the soil conditions were bad, there might be some risk, but that was not the case on the subject property. He also informed the Commission that he believed the Veteskas's were the most "canyon -conscious" people in the neighborhood, spending $1,200 per year to keep the canyon clean. He stated that the remodel was now designed to be 4' lower than the present structure, and, therefore, Mr. Widoff's view should be improved. He urged the Commission to approve the project and said that he believed the addition would increase the property values in the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 15 4, • Ms. Linda Mason, 5549 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Mason commended Mr. and Mrs. Veteska for wanting to improve their home and the neighborhood. On the subject of view impairment, she noted that it was not mentioned that there was also a fantastic ocean/city view, in addition to the view of the canyon. She supported the project and had confidence that the Planning Commission would make a safe and sound decision according to the Code. Mr. Nalin Patel, 5527 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Patel simply said he supported the project. Ms. Irena Veteska, (applicant), 5503 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Veteska reiterated that they had been planning and revising their addition for two years. She stated she hoped the current proposal would finally be approved because her daughter was 19 months old and she hoped to have another child, so the extra rooms would be even more critical. Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Widoff, who lived adjacent to the subject property, and appeared to have the strongest objections to the project, if he would like to make any additional comments. Mr. Widoff said that he was most concerned about building over that 80% slope, even if the building was cantilevered. However, if the Commission believed that there was no danger and there would be a favorable geology report, he would not object. With regard to view impairment from furniture and similar items on the deck, he asked if it would be possible to include a condition to protect his view from such items. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by commissioner Ferraro Approved (7-0). Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Alberio asked what could be done regarding Mr. Widoff's suggested condition regarding the patio furniture. Planning Administrator Petru replied that Condition No. 5 required the deck hand rails to be transparent and no permanent furniture or umbrellas would be allowed higher than the hand rail height. Chairman Mowlds wanted to add a condition regarding pulling back the foundation and increasing the cantilever, if necessary, to avoid building on the slope over 35%. Assistant Planner de Freitas said that Condition No. 6 would be modified to reflect Mr. Mowldls suggestion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 16 Planning Administrator Petru suggested that another condition could be added to provide gutters to prevent uncontrolled runoff from the roof or from drains coming off the cantilevered area to ensure that all the roof drainage would be controlled away from the slope or into non-erosive drainage devices. Commissioner Whiteneck felt this was unnecessary because the Building Code would require this action anyway. Planning Administrator Petru noted that Condition No. 5 made reference to "no permanent patio furniture" and, since patio furniture, by nature, was temporary, suggested the word "permanent" be deleted. In response to Vice Chair Hayes' query about other patio items, such as potted plants and play equipment, Planning Administrator Petru proposed that a phrase such as "other similar items" should be added. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked it if would be appropriate to add a condition regarding view impairment from large trees. Planning Administrator Petru replied that Condition No. 12 required a Covenant to*Protect Views. Chairman Mowlds speculated that the Covenant to Protect Views might need to be revised to require that the foliage could not grow higher than the hand rail on the deck. Planning Administrator Petru agreed that it might be wise to specify a lower height, since the ridge line was higher than the deck's hand rail. Commissioner Ferraro seconded commissioner Alberio,s motion, as amended. Chairman Mowlds noted that the Resolution would not be signed that evening because of the quantity of changes and that it would be brought back to the next regular meeting on March 28, 1995. Therefore, Chairman Mowlds suggested that the Commission vote on Conceptual Approval of the project. The motion passed (7-0) on a roll call vote. NEW BUSINESS - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 17 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff• 6. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 1995. Commission: - NONE Vice Chair Hayes asked Staff if regulations regarding off-site signs were going to be clarified in chapter 17.76 of the Development Code Revisions. Planning Administrator Petru said that Staff would be including the appropriate clarifications. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, protested the pollution from pesticides sprayed on weeds on the Palos Verdes Drive South median which ultimately flow into the ocean. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ferraro moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on March 28, 1995. (A JDMIN#8 - MIN3 14) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE 18