Loading...
PC MINS 19960123APPROVEDJ 3/12/96 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7 00 P M. by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chair Vannorsdall PRESENT Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark. ABSENT NONE Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Recording Secretary Drasco APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Cartwright moved to accept the agenda, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff- Director/Secretary Bernard noted that information on the League of California Cities Planners Institute in Long Beach to be held March 20-22, 1996 had been included in the Commission packets and that more would follow, as available He also stated that the "white paper" written by Dr Perry Ehlig regarding the Portuguese Bend Club Grading Project (item No 2) and late correspondence from a neighbor regarding Appeal of Height Variation No 814 -Appeal (Item No 5) had been delivered to the Commission prior to that night's meeting In addition, a letter had been received by the City from the Portuguese Bend Club to the City's Redevelopment Agency requesting permission to place the fill from the grading at the Portuguese Bend Club (Item No 2) on RDA property Commission. Commissioner Alberio reported on the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Orientation meeting, which was attended by six of the seven Commissioners on January 29, 1996, in San Diego MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 1995 Vice Chair Vannorsdall suggested changes in the fifth and seventh paragraphs on Page 8, and, in the first and seventh paragraphs on Page 12 2 COASTAL PERMIT NO. 77 - REVISION, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1315 - REVISION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 680, Portuguese Bend Club, 4100 Palos Verdes Drive South (FF) Director/Secretary Bernard suggested that one word ("not") needed to be added to the last sentence of Subsection a, on Page 2 of 5 of the Grading Permit Resolution, to read "Therefore, the amount of earth movement is not excessive in this unique situation" Planning Administrator Petru proposed that in Condition e, on Exhibit A, Page 4 of 5, an additional sentence be added at the end to read "Either the City or the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association may render this Grading Permit as null and void by providing written notice to the other party stating the reasons for the request a minimum of 60 days in advance of the termination". She noted that this suggestion was in response to discussions with the Chairman, to provide some flexibility on both sides, as discussed by the Commission at the last meeting on this item. Vice Chair Vannorsdall questioned the hours of construction, stating that allowing work to be performed from dawn to dusk would mean that grading could be going on very late in the evening during the summer. Planning Administrator Petru responded that the long hours were suggested by Staff because the grading would affect only the Portuguese Bend Club residents and that, in meeting with Homeowners Association's representatives, they indicated that they desired the opportunity to perform the maximum amount of work each day PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 2 6 • 3 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1833, Kelly and Susan Sims, 25 Headland Drive (KK) Commissioner Whiteneck moved to approve the entire Consent Calendar, with amendments to Items No. 1 and No. 2, as noted, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 185 VARIANCE NO. 388 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1793, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 676, Wayfarers Chapel, 5755 Palos Verdes South. (TS) Chairman Clark suggested that the public hearing be continued to a site visit on Saturday, February 3, 1996, so that the new Commissioners could be educated on the Wayfarers Chapel property, as well as the landslide area in general Commissioner Alberio suggested that the two subjects be discussed separately and that two different tours be scheduled to avoid confusion Director/Secretary Bernard concurred, stating that it would be difficult to schedule the two tours on the same day, because not all the experts were available on a Saturday Commissioner Whiteneck asked if the Wayfarers Chapel on-site meeting would include visiting the properties above the Chapel Director/Secretary Bernard replied that Staff would try to coordinate with surrounding property owners to make this possible Commissioner Whiteneck asked if the Commission could be provided with information regarding Exceptions to the Landslide Moratorium and Staff replied that this would be furnished to the Commission. Chairman Clark called for any speakers on this item. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that she had lived in her home for 33 years and had watched the progress of the damage to the parking lot at Wayfarers Chapel during this time She disagreed with Staffs description of the proposed building as a "replacement" structure, stating that the use for the previous building was completely different and that it was only a one-story structure She stated that she had attended the last Planning Commission meeting on-site at the Chapel and felt that Art Keene, the City's geologist, was not well informed about the City's landslide PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23, 1996 PAGE 3 Commissioner Whiteneck moved to continue the public hearing to Saturday, February 3, 1996, at 9:00 A.M. on the Wayfarers Chapel property, seconded by Vice Chair Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 814 -APPEAL; Kevin Rehm (applicant), 5925 Clint Place, Danny Lajeunesse (appellant), 5924 Clint Place (FF) Planning Administrator Petru described the Height Variation process, explaining maximum heights allowed, the Early Neighborhood Consultation and temporary frame silhouette requirements; Staffs view analysis process, protected and unprotected views; cumulative view impairment, protected viewing areas; and, the fact that existing foliage was not considered in determining view impairment She concluded by explaining the appeal process, first to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council Chairman Clark asked her to explain the specific Height Variation findings Planning Administrator Petru replied that, in addition to finding that the applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation requirements, Staff must find the following- 1) no significant view impairment from a public viewpoint or overlook, 2) the subject site is not located on a ridge or promontory, 3) steps have been taken to minimize view impairment, 4) no significant cumulative view impairment, 5) no significant view impairment from surrounding properties; 6) compliance with other City requirements; and, 7) neighborhood compatibility in reference to size, lot coverage, setbacks, architectural style, articulation of front facade, and building materials. Chairman Clark noted that, from his previous experience on the Planning Commission, he found the small blue Planners Pocket Guide provided to the Commission to be a very good reference and suggested that the Commissioners use this resource. He asked Staff to prepare a City section summarizing some of the key aspects of the Code for insertion into this Pocket Guide Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating that Staffs recommendation was to uphold the Director's decision to approve the project since the view of the ocean would be blocked by construction to 16 feet in height (and, therefore, was not a protected view), the view of the mountains over the 16 foot height measurement was also not a protected view, as defined by the Code, and Staff found that the project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 4 Commissioner Alberio mentioned that, on his site visit, he noticed an enclosed structure within the east side yard that was built to the property line and asked if Staff had seen it Assistant Planner de Freitas said that he had not noticed such an enclosure but indicated that any illegal conditions on the property would be rectified when the proposed addition was built, otherwise a Code Enforcement case would be initiated Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Mr. Danny Lajeunesse (appellant), 5924 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr Lajeunesse advised that he lived across the street from the subject property. He stated that he did not agree with Staffs analysis that the proposed addition would not significantly block views and that he was also concerned with cumulative view impairment. Mr. Lajeunesse disagreed that the view of the mountains was not protected, stating that the Code stated that only mountain views which were not normally visible were unprotected. He also felt that the enlarged home would not be compatible with the much smaller, predominantly single story homes on the street. He also objected to the adjacent homes losing sunlight and privacy as a result of the proposed addition Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Lajeunesse how long he had lived in his home Mr. Lajeunesse said he had been there for ten years Commissioner Alberio asked if there were CC&R's or a Homeowners Association in this neighborhood Mr Lajeunesse said that there was neither, to his knowledge Ms. Fang-li Lin, 5906 Clint Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Ms Lin stated that she was opposed to the project because she currently had a view from all the bedrooms on the second floor of her house that would be lost if the proposed addition were allowed Ms Charlotte Dean, 5916 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes Ms Dean reported to the Commission that she had lived in her home for 32 years She stated that she felt she had been deceived by the Early Neighborhood Consultation form presented to her by the applicant, because she had not intended to indicate her approval of the proposed addition PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 5 Chairman Clark clarified that her signature on the City form only indicated that she had reviewed the plan and did not specify approval Ms Dean said that Mr Rehm had been required to obtain signatures from a certain percentage of his neighbors If she had refused to sign, he may not have been able to satisfy this requirement and would have been prevented from moving forward with his application. Planning Administrator Petru explained that if an applicant made a concerted effort to obtain signatures, but could still not comply with the required minimum percentages, then other options were available to satisfy the Early Neighborhood Consultation requirement. Commissioner Alberio asked Ms Dean if she knew if there were CC&R's in this neighborhood Ms Dean said that she did not remember but believed that there might have been CC&R's at one time but did not know if they were still in effect. Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms Dean if she understood that the Code considered views blocked by a structure 16' in height or lower as unprotected and that the applicant had a right to build to 16' Ms Dean said that she did understand, but she believed that the neighbors' rights had to be considered also Mr. Mike Kikuchi, 5917 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Kikuchi explained that he had bought his home five years ago because of the ocean view from the kitchen. He felt that the proposed addition would not only block his view but also his sunlight. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Kikuchi if he had seen the photographs presented by Staff to the Commission Mr Kikuchi said that he had not and Commissioner Cartwright showed them to him, asking him if his current view was beneath the black tape on the photograph indicating the 16' height limit on the applicant's property Mr Kikuchi said that his view was beneath the black tape indicated on the photograph Mr. Kevin Rehm (applicant), 5925 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Rehm said that he had nine points to raise 1) He had complied with Early Neighborhood Consultation and built the required temporary silhouette He had knocked on 85 doors PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 6 to advise 65% of his neighbors of his plans 2) The proposed structure would not impair public views. 3) The property was not located on a ridge or promontory 4) The addition was designed to minimize impairment of view He then passed around a cardboard model of the proposed project and explained that the neighbors' views were mostly across the top of his garage. He had set back the addition over the garage and placed the solar water heating panels on the highest roof top so that they would be hidden from the neighbors' view 5) He felt he had tried very hard to make the design of the residence compatible with the neighborhood by designing the outside first, and then the floor plan. He added that there were other second story homes in the neighborhood 6) The addition would cause no significant cumulative view impairment since there were no protected views 7) Foliage had not been considered in determining whether the project would result in view blockage 8) His plan complied with all other City requirements 9) He urged that the View Ordinance be enforced as written Mr Rehm explained that his Attachment D submitted to the Commission had been updated since the Commissioners had received their packets on Thursday and that he now had 37 signatures from the surrounding property owners agreeing that his addition would be compatible with the neighborhood Chairman Clark asked Staff if the cardboard model represented the house accurately Assistant Planner de Freitas said that the subterranean basement was not visible and that the garage would be at a slightly lower elevation than the first floor of the residence, which was not illustrated by the model Mr Rehm stated that the first floor of the house would be higher than the floor of the garage He explained that he made the two levels the same on the model, so that it would sit flat on a table Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked about access to basement Mr. Rehm said it would be through a door in a hallway at the back of the garage Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked if an architect would be hired later to draw the final plans. Mr Rehm said that up to now he had drawn his own plans but he would indeed hire an architect if his project was approved at the planning level Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked Mr Rehm if he realized that, if approved, he would be required to build to match the submitted plans Mr Rehm indicated that he understood PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 7 Commissioner Alberio said that, in listening to the neighbors' comments, he hoped that a compromise could be reached to address their concerns of view, light, air, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility He felt that these issues could be addressed by modifying the second story to preserve the views over the garage and to provide articulation on both sides of the addition to give light and air to the adjacent neighbors Mr Rehm explained that he tried to work with neighbors and that he was sensitive to Ms Dean's concerns He stated that ten months ago he had offered to cut his addition in half but she was not satisfied by his offer, and did not want to see any second story addition made to the house He said that he had made her the same offer again more recently stating that he was in compliance with the Code with his original plan, but she still said no, stating that there was a principal involved Mr Rehm concluded by saying that, therefore, he was committed to his current design and was not willing to compromise at this time Commissioner Alberio suggested that Mr Rehm articulate the garage and flatten the roof to preserve a view corridor, even though the views under 16' in height were not protected Mr Rehm replied that he had the right, under the Code, to build to 16 feet over the garage However, he explained that this plan would block more views and would not be as attractive as his proposed design Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked if Mr Rehm could modify the bonus room which projected into his neighbors' views Mr Rehm answered that the room would be too small to be functional if he set it back any further from the front property line, and would become only a hallway Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked if he would eliminate the room Mr Rehm replied that the bonus room was an important element of the addition to him, and it provided access to the front deck over the garage Commissioner Alberio agreed that Mr Rehm had a right to build, but that Mr Rehm was also taking views from his neighbors, even though they were not protected views He believed a compromise would be appropriate in this situation Mr Rehm said, with all due respect, that he had already tried to work with the neighbors, but they were not willing to compromise PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23, 1996 PAGE 8 Mr Kevin Dunbar, 29604 Grayslake Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Dunbar said that the wanted to raise three issues 1) Ms. Dean disagreed with the Code regarding views being unprotected under 16' in height. However, he believed that she could take this issue up with the City Council, and not take it out on Mr Rehm 2) Regarding cumulative view impairment, if all of the houses on the same side of the street built to 16', the neighbors would have no view 3) Regarding the distant mountain view arguments, Mr Dunbar believed the neighbors' arguments were merely semantics and that these views were unprotected under the Code He felt that the additional ten feet from 16' to 26' in height did not affect the views but improved the articulation of the residence. Mr Dunbar believed the appeal should fail because the application met the requirements of the Code Mr Jesse Valenzuela, 26881 Grayslake Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr Valenzuela advised that he lived below and northwest of the subject property and that the addition would not impact his view He believed that if there was compliance with all of the Code regulations, the addition should be allowed Mr. Jim Rahman, 26949 Grayslake Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Rahman stated that he was in favor of the addition and that it would not impact his view. He believed the addition would be compatible with other houses in neighborhood as there were other two-story houses nearby. Mr. Rahman closed by give his opinion that the improvements to Mr. Rehm's home would improve neighborhood and increase property values In answer to Commissioner Alberio's query, Mr. Rahman replied that there were no CC&R's in this tract. Commissioner Alberio asked if he had been inside any of the houses across the street from the subject property Mr. Rahman said that he had not been in the houses, but had stood on the sidewalk and looked at the silhouette of the proposed addition from that vantage point Commissioner Alberio said that he did not believe it was possible to accurately analyze the potential view impact from that position Chairman Clark asked how long Mr. Rahman had lived in his home and he said one year Commissioner Franklin asked how many houses in the neighborhood had two stories PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 9 Mr. Rahman said there were four homes nearby that had second story additions, none of which impacted views Mr. Al Mashouf, 5901 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Mashouf advised that he had lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and had not met Mr. Rehm until December 1995 when he came by to describe his addition as part of the Early Neighborhood Consultation process Mr Mashouf said that he asked Mr Rehm if his plans met all the Code requirements and he said yes Mr Mashouf said that there were many second story houses in the neighborhood He reported that Mr. Rehm's addition would not block his view. He thought that Mr Rehm should be able to build what he wanted, but also that it was a good idea to encourage the neighbors to work together Mr Mashouf said that he asked Mr Rehm if he could expand without adding a second story, then he looked for himself and was convinced that a second story was the only alternative to increase the size of the house Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr. Mashouf had been inside any of the homes across the street from Mr. Rehm Mr. Mashouf said that he had been in some in the past, but not specifically to look at the view Commissioner Ng asked Mr. Mashouf if he had a view over the subject property and would he object if his view would be blocked by Mr. Rehm's addition Mr. Mashouf explained that he had lost a view at a previous residence by an addition that complied with the Code When he bought his current view home, he made sure that the location was such that the view could not be blocked in the same manner Mr. Danny Lajeunesse (appellant - rebuttal) Mr. Lajeunesse passed around photographs taken from his home to show the potential cumulative effect He said that if the majority of houses across the street from his house were built out to 16' in height, he would still have a good view but not if this proposed addition was 26' in height He reported that there were 12 houses on Clint Place and three of them had second stories, but they were popups over the garage and none of the houses were over 2,600 square feet in size Mr Lajeunesse felt that the proposed enlargement, which included an 840 square foot basement, an 800 square foot garage, and an increased living space of 1,700 square feet (which would result in living space of over 3,500 square feet) was dust too big He said that he had some view under 16' , but any structure over 16' would significantly block his view He reiterated that the distant mountain view was normally visible and that the proposed height of 26' feet would impact his view He noted that Mr. Rehm had said he tried to work with his neighbors but he had seen him only twice, when he came by in March 1995 and again on New Year's Eve 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 10 v • Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr Rehm had offered to cut his addition in half. Mr. Lajeunesse said that Mr Rehm was not serious about that proposal Commissioner Alberio asked what Mr. Lajeunesse had said in response to Mr. Rehm's offer Mr. Lajeunesse said that he had made no comment at that time Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Lajeunesse if he would like to reach a compromise Mr Lajeunesse said that he would like to see a compromise, especially to see the project include more landscaping in the front yard and to see the size of the addition become more compatible with the neighborhood Commissioner Ng asked if he would rather see a boat or recreational vehicle parked in the driveway or enclosed in a large garage Mr. Lajeunesse said that he would rather have the vehicles parked in the garage because Mr Rehm had so many of them. However, he felt that the garage would still be too big and would be incompatible with the neighborhood. He added that the houses in the neighborhood were originally about 1,400 square feet in size and had been added on to with single story additions until they averaged about 1,900 square feet in size. In addition, he noted that there were three homes on the street with small second story additions, but they did not affect anyone's view Commissioner Ng noted that the home at 5905 Clint Place was 3,090 square feet in size Mr Lajeunesse said that he understood the largest house was 2,800 square feet in size, but that it was a one-story, not a two-story house He said that the average square footage of the houses in the neighborhood was 2,200 with a 400 square foot garage, for a total of 2,600 square feet Mr Kevin Rehm (applicant - rebuttal) Mr. Rehm stated that he did not feel there would be a cumulative view impact because, from his understanding of the Code, the house next door was not built at 16 feet in height. If it was built out per the Code, the view it would block would not be protected Regarding the neighbors' concerns about the driveway, his design called for a tile driveway, not an unattractive one stained with oil, and he had planned to have more landscaping and a smaller driveway than currently existed Mr Rehm stated that he wanted to work with the neighbors and planned to plant foliage to screen the residence and use opaque windows for privacy He PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 11 concluded by stating that his costs would be increased considerably if he were limited to 16' in height because, at that lower height, he would have to remove the roof of the existing home. Commissioner Alberio suggested that both sides of the home could be articulated Mr Rehm said that this was not possible because he would lose a bearing wall and there was no room for a post inside the house Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked about the height of the rail of the deck over the garage and what type of furniture Mr Rehm planned to put on the deck Mr Rehm said the guard rail would about 3' in height, or whatever the Building Code required He planned to have a table and chairs on the deck He added that a similar rail would also hide the solar heating on the roof over the main part of the residence Chairman Clark asked Mr Rehm why he needed such a large garage. Mr Rehm said that the larger home would mean that more people could live there and more parking space would be needed and that also he had wanted to park his vehicles off the street. He added that, since he had proposed the addition, his neighbors had complained about the number of vehicles he had and that they had not complained before in the ten years he had lived in the neighborhood He said that currently he was paying for off-site storage for some of his vehicles Vice Chair Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Clark asked Staff to comment on the issue of distant mountain view Planning Administrator Petru replied that when distant mountain views were added to the Code in 1989 as unprotected views, the Guidelines adopted for Height Variations, defined them as the mountains that surround the Los Angeles basin, including the Santa Monica and Santa Ana mountains, Mt. Wilson, etc She added that, although this subject had been debated by the Planning Commission and View Restoration Commission in the past, these views are still unprotected by the current Code Chairman Clark asked for comments regarding the size of the project. Assistant Planner de Freitas said that Staff had recalculated the liveable area of the house, and it was about 3,400 square feet in size He added that the largest home in the neighborhood, a two-story home, was almost 2,900 square feet in size. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 12 Chairman Clark noted that the original calculation was 3,506 square feet. Assistant Planner de Freitas said there was a 600 square foot porch which had been incorrectly included in the previous calculation. Chairman Clark asked what surrounding area was used for comparison Assistant Planner de Freitas said that usually the ten closest homes surrounding the subject property were considered as the project area and, in this case, all of Clint Place was used He said that, in general, the homes on nearby Grayslake Road were larger, and that there were larger homes on Finecrest Drive, as well Vice Chair Vannorsdall confirmed that, on next street, there were five two-story homes, which looked larger than the other homes in the area. Chairman Clark asked Staff about privacy issues Assistant Planner de Freitas referred to the larger scale plan placed on the wall and indicated that on the second floor, there were windows in the master bath adjacent to the tub, and one window in the bedroom that may overlook the next door neighbor's rear yard area. He added that the applicant was willing to use translucent glass to protect his neighbor's privacy Chairman Clark asked each Commissioner to summarize his or her thoughts Commissioner Franklin said that the important issues were views and neighborhood compatibility He acknowledged that views below 16' were not protected and the views from the homes across the street would be lost at 16' He stated that the applicant had satisfied all of the Code requirements and he could find no basis for denial Commissioner Ng noted that the applicant had the right to build to a 16' height (which would block views anyway), the proposed home would not be much larger than the next largest house in the neighborhood, there were other two story houses on the same street; and, the direct access driveway would require less concrete than the current in- direct access driveway She said that Vice Chair Vannorsdall had suggested reducing the size of the bonus room, but the applicant had said that there would be no room for the stairway if he had to set back the bonus room further from the front property line Commissioner Whiteneck said that he could add little to what Commissioners Franklin and Ng had said, but believed the house would be compatible with the neighborhood He reiterated that views below 16' were unprotected PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 13 Commissioner Cartwright stated that he sympathized with the neighbors who opposed the project, and understood the conflict between protecting views and allowing homes to be upgraded and modernized. However, he said that there were other homes as large or larger nearby and second stories were present as well He noted also that views under 16' were unprotected, so that development to this height should be allowed Commissioner Cartwright said that he believed the Early Neighborhood Consultation process had worked as it was supposed to but that it was regretable that it had resulted in ill will He supported the Director's decision to allow the project. Commissioner Alberio said that he believed a landowner had a right to develop his property, as long as the neighbors' rights were considered as well. He added that it seemed that Mr. Rehm did not get the message through to his neighbors that he was willing to reduce his addition in half He hoped that there could still be a compromise with the neighbors. Mr Alberto believed that articulation on both side elevations and a lowered roofline would help make the project more compatible with the neighborhood Vice Chair Vannorsdall noted that the primary opponents of the project lived across the street from the applicant and that they were concerned with impacts to their views Mr Vannorsdall said that since the views were taken diagonally over the existing structure, he believed that a compromise might include further setback of the portion of the addition over the garage, rather than on the sides of the addition He also suggested a restriction on furniture being allowed on the deck over garage Mr Vannorsdall said that he could approve the project with these two conditions. Chairman Clark agreed that there was a basis for approval of the project, but he also sympathized with and understood the concerns of the neighbors He believed that there could be more consideration given to the design of the second story and he asked Staff what approach should to be taken to accomplish this Director/Secretary Bernard suggested two options 1) Ask the applicant to work with the neighbors and Staff to redesign the addition and return to the Commission with a satisfactory compromise, or, 2) Ask the applicant if he was willing to explore the design options suggested by the Commission If he was unwilling to re -design, the Commission could vote on the item that evening and, depending on the outcome, either party could submit an appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the item to provide time for the applicant and the neighbor to work out a compromise, seconded by Vice Chair Vannorsdall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 14 Commissioner Whiteneck asked how much more time would be needed and wondered if two weeks would be enough Planning Administrator Petru replied that it would be difficult for Staff to arrange a meeting between all the parties and prepare the Staff Report in time for the meeting on February 13, 1996. Chairman Clark believed that a continuance for one month would be reasonable Commissioner Cartwright agreed that compromise was always good, but he was concerned that there would have to be significant changes in order to benefit the neighbors and he wondered if this would be wasted time He believed that a compromise would be more complicated than just taking out a room or lowering the roof Commissioner Franklin felt that the motion was too open ended because it provided no information as to the kind of adjustments needed He said that even though there were concerns mentioned about the deck and bonus room, without specifics such as this stated in the motion, the applicant and neighbors might have difficulty focusing on what the Commission wanted in the way of a re -design. Commissioner Albeno suggested that, since the second story was designed by the applicant himself and not by an architect, there may be other options available that the applicant may not have considered Chairman Clark agreed that some guidelines should be established, but he was concerned about stifling creativity as well. He suggested that the Staff consider adding conditions requiring vegetation to screen the building and different glass in the windows to preserve privacy Commissioner Albeno asked how much the roof could be lowered Vice Chair Vannorsdall believed that enough direction had been given and further issues should be worked out with Staff, not at the meeting that evening Chairman Clark agreed that enough issues had been raised to begin the discussions Commissioner Franklin still felt that the direction to the applicant and Staff was being left too open Chairman Clark asked Staff if there was clear direction PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 15 Assistant Planner de Freitas said that there was sufficient direction from the Commission. Director/Secretary Bernard agreed that there were areas to pursue, but added that Mr Rehm should not be required to compromise too much on the issue of preserving unprotected views Planning Administrator Petru suggested that the Public hearing be re -opened and continued to February 27, 1996 to provide adequate time for the applicant to work with the neighbors and Staff regarding the facade of the second story, the redesign of the bonus room, articulation on the sides, and landscaping and window treatments for privacy The maker and seconder of the motion agreed to include re -opening the public hearing and, in addition, the specific direction summarized by Staff. The motion passed (5-1-1) on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Alberio, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark NOES: Commissioner Cartwright ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Franklin RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed from 9.50 P.M to 10.04 P.M NEW BUSINESS* Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Vice Chair Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Mr. David Boyd, (project architect), 24050 Madison Street, Suite 202, Torrance, CA 90505 Mr Boyd stated that, based on the information in the Staff Report, the metal stairway and railroad tie steps on the extreme slope would be removed from the plans to avoid the necessity of a Variance application He indicated that the previous owner did not obtain the proper permits for the wall, which now meant that his client had to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23, 1996 PAGE 16 pay double fees for an after -the -fact permit In addition, his client was burdened by substandard construction which caused the wall to collapse Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked if there would be landscaping placed in front of the wall Mr. Boyd said that there would be fruit trees and series of bougainvillea or vines on the lower side of wall Commissioner Cartwright confirmed that there would be no change in the height or length of the wall that would be visible from the lower property Mr Boyd said that this was correct. Vice Chair Vannorsdall confirmed that the drainage problems would be solved Mr Boyd said that a bench drain would be installed behind the wall, the area between the old and new wall would be filled with gravel and the new wall would have weep holes at the bottom to allow water to drain through Commissioner Ng asked if the approval could be conditions to provide screening, because the old wall was Palos Verdes stone and the new one would be stucco Chairman Clark said that this would be possible and directed Staff to include a landscaping plan to screen the wall in the conditions of approval Vice Chair Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to approve Grading Permit No. 1859, with modified Conditions of Approval as directed by the Commission, seconded Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff: 6 Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, February 13, 1996 Director/Secretary Bernard stated that Staff would provide an oral report at the February 13, 1996 meeting on the subject matter in the letter resident Harold Hermann had provided to the Planning Commission before that evening's meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 17 t 0 - Commission Commissioner Franklin asked that a list of Future Projects be placed on the February 13, 1996 meeting agenda. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, outlined her history of attending City Council and Planning Commission meetings and her interest in management of the landslide, including recent City approvals for grading in the Portuguese Bend Club Bill Griffin, 5 Ginger Root Lane, discussed movement from the landslide in Abalone Cove and provided the Commission with photographs showing movement in Altamira Canyon. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adjourn to an on-site meeting at Wayfarers Chapel on Saturday, February 3, at 9:00 A.M. seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:40 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on Tuesday, February 13, 1996 M:\USERS\JACKID\WPWIN60\MINUTES\96PCMN1.23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 23,1996 PAGE 18