Loading...
PC MINS 19970825CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING AUGUST 25, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Approved 11/11/97 Q�) The meeting was called to order at 7 04 P M by Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Slayden ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberto, Clark, Slayden, Ng, Vice Chairman Whiteneck, and Chairman Vannorsdall Absent Commissioner Cartwright (excused). Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, Assistant Planner Ward, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA With no objections from the Commission, Chairman Vannorsdall declared the Agenda approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed an article provided by Commissioner Alberio regarding the El Nino condition predicted for the coming winter. Commission Commissioner Ng thanked her fellow Commissioners and Staff for their support during the time of her mother's passing. Chairman Vannorsdall provided a facsimile to Staff from Judith Webb regarding the Tarapaca project (Grading Permit No. 1933). CONTINUED BUSINESS Height Variation No. 835 and Site Plan Review No. 7988: Mr. & Mrs. All Edgerton, 59 Oceanaire Drive. Commissioner Ng informed the Commission that she was not present at the Adjourned Meeting on August 14, 1997 (the first public hearing on this project) and therefore recused herself from this item Director/Secretary Petru stated that since this was a continued public hearing, Staff had not prepared an oral report to present that evening and assumed that the public testimony started at the last meeting of August 14, 1997 would continue that evening Ms Petru also stated that in order for Vice Chairman Whiteneck to participate on this item he would have to listen to the audio tapes of the previous meeting Vice Chairman Whiteneck recused himself from participating on this item Chairman Vannorsdall asked how many speakers were present that evening Director/Secretary Petru replied that there were six speakers present Chairman Vannorsdall called for the first speaker to come to the podium Mr John Cotter. 57 Oceanaire Drive, opposed the proposed project due to his concern that the second story addition would invade the privacy of his property In addition, he felt that the design of the addition was not compatible with the other structures in the neighborhood. Mr. Peter Woo. (speaking on behalf of Jack Woo, 60 Oceanaire Drive), stated that if the Commission granted the request of the applicant it would be very detrimental for the adjacent property owner's view of the ocean He indicated that the addition would especially impair the view and intrude into the privacy of Mr Jack Woo's property since the proposed project would face directly towards the bedrooms of this home. Mr Woo stated that the view from the proposed project also invaded the privacy of 57 Oceanaire since the proposed project would look down on the pool area. Mr. Keehong Kim, 56 Oceanaire Drive, opposed the proposed project due to the excessive bulk and mass of the structure and felt that it would not be compatible with the other neighboring homes Mr. Jim Robinson, 40 Oceanaire, also opposed the proposed project and stated that the aesthetics of the structure were not compatible with the surrounding area. He also added that he was also concerned about view impairment and privacy and felt that if Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 1997 Page 2 the Commission granted this request it would create problems in the future for the homes in the Del Cerro tract Mr Robinson felt that the project would decrease the value in his home, as well as other property values in the neighborhood Ms Carolyn Moebius. 38 Oceanaire Drive, stated that, at the meeting of August 14, 1997, Mrs. Edgerton had presented a photograph board and indicated that Mrs Moebius' home was one of several multi-level homes in the Del Cerro Development Ms Moebius clarified to the Commission that her home was a one-story home and not a multi-level home. She strongly opposed the proposed project because of the aesthetics of the structure Ms Teng Li An Lee, 55 Oceanaire Drive, stated that she opposed the proposed project because of the appearance of the bulk and mass of the completed structure She also claimed that the proposed addition would cause impairment of views from her property, as well as from neighboring properties Mr Al Edgerton, (applicant/appellant) 59 Oceanaire Drive, stated that at the August 14, 1997 meeting he provided facts and data to the Commission showing that the proposed protect was in conformity with the neighborhood in terms of front yard setback, size and scale. However, the Commission had encouraged him to meet with his neighbors in order to try and work out a compromise solution The key direction provided that night include consideration of lowering the roof line, providing further articulation to the second story facade facing the street and the possibility of extending the first floor addition further into the rear yard Mr Edgerton stated that he had discussed alternatives with Mr Cicoria (62 Oceanaire), Mr Cotter (57 Oceanaire), Mr Woo (60 Oceanaire), as well as the other neighbors, in an attempt to resolve their concerns However, he indicated that in order to address each and every one of their concerns would have resulted in no project. As a result, there were no viable alternative to bring back to the Commission and he asked for more design input from the Commission to make the project more compatible with the neighborhood Chairman Vannorsdall asked the neighbors to approach the podium for rebuttal Mr Cotter stated that the discussion between Paul Cotter and the Edgerton's was regarding the windows on the west building elevation Although the applicants had offered to make another one of the windows on this side of the addition translucent, the Cotters were still concerned that this could be changed to clear glass later, which would infringe on their privacy In addition, he felt that the Edgertons had not made any substantial changes to the project which adequately addressed the neighborhood's concerns about compatibility Planning Commission Minutes August 25,1997 Page 3 Mr Cicoria emphasized that the Dei Cerro neighborhood would change for the worse if the requested protect was granted He stated that the presentation given by Mr Edgerton on August 14, 1997 was very well done, but was incorrect in many ways Mr Cicoria stated that most of the homes on Oceanaire are not two-story or split-level homes There was only one house at the corner of Oceanaire and Coveview Drive that could be considered as a two-story house He stated that the proposed house was massive and did not fit into the neighborhood. He also mentioned that he had spoken with Mr. Edgerton about expanding his home father back into the rear yard Mr Cicoria felt that this was the only way to resolve the aesthetic issues associated with the protect. Mr. Woo, again speaking on behalf of Jack Woo, clarified that he had no objection if the proposed project expanded easterly and westerly as a single story addition, as long as it did not infringe on the privacy of the adjacent residents. He stated that the Edgerton's should explore all alternatives before constructing a massive second story. Mr Woo also stated that all of the homes at the southern side of Oceanaire Drive were single story. He urged the Commission to support Staffs recommendation and deny the project Commissioner Clark moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (4-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 24 P.M. there was a brief recess until 8 38 P M when the meeting reconvened Director/Secretary Petru informed the Commission that an additional request to speak was received from Mr Timothy Cotter after the public hearing was closed She advised that if the Commission desired to listen to the testimony there would need to be a motion passed to re -open the public hearing. Chairman Vannorsdall moved to re -open the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (4-0). Mr. Timothy Cotter, commented on Mr. Edgerton's August 14, 1997 letter and stated that it was filled with misinformation He stated that there were 14 letters of opposition that had been submitted to the City regarding the proposed project Mr Cotter stated that Mr Edgerton's previous presentation only included information that cast a favorable light on his project, that the setback analysis was skewed in his favor and did not represent the cul-de-sac neighborhood since it included the whole subdivision for comparison and, therefore, did not adequately address the neighbor's concerns He too, strongly urged the Commission to deny the proposed project Planning Commission Minutes August 25,1997 Page 4 Chairman Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (4-0). Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Clark commended the applicant and neighbors on their efforts of working together to resolve the concerns about the proposed project He also commended Staff on the excellent information presented in the staff report and indicated that he had found it to be very useful to the Commission Mr Clark felt that the privacy issues could be adequately mitigated in the manner proposed by the Staff and worked out through the recent consultation between the neighbors In terms of view impairment, Commissioner Clark noted in the staff report that there would be no view impairment, either singularly or cumulatively, that would be caused by the proposed addition As far as neighborhood compatibility was concerned, Mr. Clark believed that the project was too bulky and massive and, therefore, was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, he was not supportive of the applicant's request Commissioner Slayden believed that the applicant had explored alternatives to resolve the concerns of the neighbors. He concurred with Commissioner Clark's comments and also felt that the proposed project would not fit in with the surrounding residences and therefore, could not support the applicant's request Commissioner Alberio concurred with his fellow Commissioners and stated that the proposed project was incompatible with the neighborhood since it was so massive in size. Mr Alberio supported Staffs recommendation to deny the applicant's request for a height variation permit Chairman Vannorsdall stated that the size of the proposed second story level was entirely too massive and felt that an appropriate reduction in the visual appearance of the residence could be made by increasing the amount of articulation on the front facade of the building Chairman Vannorsdall agreed with his fellow Commissioners and stated that he too could not support this request Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission for a motion regarding this item Commissioner Clark moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-38; deny Height Variation No. 835, but encourage the applicant to redesign of the project after consultation with Staff, and approved Site Plan Review No. 7988, subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed (4- 0-2), with Vice Chairman Whiteneck and Commissioner Ng abstaining since they were not present at the Adjourned Meeting of August 14, 1997. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,1997 Page 5 Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff At the request of Staff, the Commission cancelled the October 14, 1997 meeting, due to the Staff's attendance at the California Chapter American Planning Association Conference held during that week in Monterey. Commission The Commission requested Staff to agendize the proposed amendment of P.C. Resolution No. 96-12 (Planning Commission Rules and Procedures) for the meeting of September 9, 1997. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, discussed the injustices of reconsidering items after a decision has been made by the Commission and cited the Lie/Lee case on Oceanaire Drive as an example She also commented on the recent decisions of the Commission which she felt were incorrect Teng Li Ann Lee, 55 Oceanaire Drive, stated that the City Staff should inform applicants of whether or not their projects conform to the City's Code prior to the time they submit their projects to the City so that time and money are not wasted Wil • At 9:19 P.M. Commissioner Alberto moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Chairman Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by Chairman Vannorsdall. N 1GROUPIPLANNINGVCMINWfIN08.25 Planning Commission Minutes August 25,1997 Page 6