Loading...
PC MINS 19980728CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 1998 Approved 08/11/98 The meeting was called to order at 7 06 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Cartwright ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark. Absent Commissioner Vannorsdall (absent/excused). Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Principal Planner Snow, Assistant Planners Louie and Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to consider the Agenda Items in the following order: 1, 2, 4, 3, 5 and 6. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Staff distributed late correspondence from residents regarding Agenda Item No. 5 (Code Amendment No. 42). Principal Planner Snow stated that the items of correspondence would be included in the next Staff Report if the Public Hearing for this item were continued to August 11, 1998, as recommended by Staff. Commissioner Alberio moved to amend the approval of the Agenda in the following order: 1, 2, 5, 4, 3, and 6. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed, (6-0). Commission Commissioner Alberio stated his intent to present an oral report regarding the draft antenna ordinance for the benefit of the Amateur Radio Club members that were present that evening. Commissioner Alberio distributed comments from Commissioner Vannorsdall regarding Agenda Item No. 3 (Height Variation No. 859) since he was unable to attend the meeting that evening. Mr. Alberio also distributed an article from 'All Points of View' dated June 1998 regarding the 'Natural Hazards Disclosures'. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of June 28, 1998 Vice Chairman Cartwright requested that on page 4, paragraph 1, line 3 be modified to read as, '...and passed by a roll -can vote, (4-3) with Commissioners Paris, Slayden, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark dissenting.' In paragraph 3, line 2, Mr. Cartwright requested that the sentence be modified to read as, '...to depict the length of the proposed clubhouse as viewed from the from the north, east, west and south...' and, line 3 be modified to read as, '...and passed by a roll -call vote, (4-3) with Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, and Vannorsdall dissenting-'. Commissioner Paris requested that on page 4, paragraph 2, line 1 the word 'moved be replaced with the word 'suggested 2. Minutes of July 28, 1998 There were no modifications requested by the Commissioners for this set of minutes. Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the Minutes of June 28, 1998 as amended and the Minutes of July 14, 1998 as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed, (6-0). Agenda Item No. 5 was considered at this time Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 42: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide Before presentation of this item, Chairman Clark explained to the public that an Ad -Hoc Committee was formed by the Commission a few months ago to discuss and review the antenna ordinance and recommend amendment in the Development Code as deemed appropriate. Chairman Clark informed the public that the Ad -Hoc Committee was composed of (3) three Planning Commissioners, Mr Lyon, Mr. Vannorsdall, and Mr. Alberio - Chairperson. Mr. Alberio stated that the Ad -Hoc Committee had met five times Amateur Radio Club representatives attended one meeting and provided their input regarding the City's antenna ordinance. Director/Secretary Rojas also attended the past meetings. Mr Albeno stated that the Ad -Hoc Committee had submitted draft antenna code amendment language to the City Attorney, however, modifications were suggested Mr. Alberio informed the Commission that the Ad -Hoc Committee would meet with the City Attorney on Wednesday, July 29, 1998 to discuss the suggested changes and that after the additional amendments were made, a final draft would be presented to the Commission for discussion at the meeting of August 11, 1998 Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Mr Dale Hanks 5225 Middlecrest Road, a member of the Amateur Radio Club stated that the re -writing of the code should not be based on a particular applicant and not be coupled with a moratorium Mr Hanks stated that he and his colleagues reviewed the City's existing antenna code and provided their recommendations to the Ad Hoc Committee He and his colleagues have continued to offer to work with the Ad -Hoc Committee to perfect the Code Therefore, Mr Hanks and his colleagues proposed another alternative, and request that the moratorium be dropped Chairman Clark informed Mr Hanks that the City Council imposed the moratorium, not the Planning Commission and that the Council directed Staff and the Commission to review the antenna ordinance in the Development Code and forward recommended changes as deemed appropriate. Commissioner Alberio added to Chairman Clark's comment and stated that the current draft code had nothing to do with a particular individual's application Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 3 Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the meeting of August 11, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed, (6-0). With no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Agenda Item No 4 was considered at this time. 4. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 856; Magalay Perea, 32415 Nautilus Drive Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the Staff Report. He stated that the applicant proposed to enlarge the existing attached three -car garage by 173 square feet, and construction of a 996 square foot second story addition over the entire footprint of the attached garage Mr Schonborn stated that two of the nine findings could not be made in order to grant the Height Variation as follows, 1) the proposed second -story addition was not designed and situated in a manner so as to minimize view impairment, and, 2) the proposed project would significantly impair the ocean view from the property located at 32410 Nautilus Drive Therefore, Staff recommended denial of Height Variation No 856 Commissioner Albeno asked how long has the silhouette framing had been erected at the subject site and Assistant Schonborn replied since June 13, 1998 Commissioner Alberio asked if the new owners (Rodriguez's) at 32410 Nautilus Drive were notified of the proposed project and Assistant Schonborn replied that the new owners were informed during the 30 -day comment period. Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that he visited the proposed project at the subject site and the property at 32410 Nautilus and was informed by the new owner that they were notified four days prior to closing escrow Director/Secretary Rous stated that he and Principal Planner Snow spoke to the realtor and explained the purpose of the silhouette framing Commissioner Alberio asked if the realtor understood the purpose for the erected silhouette framing and Director/Secretary replied that it was explained to her and that he informed her of the development approximately one week before the 30 -day notice period expired. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Mr. Michael Sribnev. (applicant) 32415 Nautilus Drive, stated that the purpose for the proposed addition was to build a room for his parents who were in the process of Planning Commission Minutes July 28,1998 Page 4 moving in with his family and that he and his wife needed office space Mr Sribney stated that he would willing to work with the new owner at 32410 Nautilus, Staff, and the Commission to explore other alternatives to reach a compromise for the design of his proposed addition. He further stated his opinion that the primary view corridor from 32410 Nautilus was down the cul-de-sac, and that he felt the view impact would be insignificant if constructed as proposed Ms. Magaly Perea} (applicant's architect) 116611 Thorson Avenue, Lynwood, CA stated that although she felt that there was not a significant view impairment for the new owners at 32410 Nautilus Drive, she and her client would be willing to work with Staff in seeking other alternatives to mitigate the view impairment at hand Ms Perea stated that when her client submitted the application to the City for a Height Variation it was not intentionally meant to block the view of the new homeowners. Commissioner Slayden asked if she objected to the idea of redesigning the proposed project to a flat roof type Mr. Perea replied that the view would be sufficiently preserved, but objected to the suggestion since there may be leakage problems with a flat roof Commissioner Slayden asked if the ceilings of the additional room and the garage were lowered would the height of the entire home be maintained while utilizing the pitched -roof alternative and Mrs. Perea replied that this could be done Commissioner Alberio stated that the present design of the proposed project seemed to appear as a pop-up type design. Mr. Alberio stated he had a discussion with the new owners at 32410 Nautilus Drive who suggested that the applicant recess the proposed addition further back. Ms. Perea replied that she and her client discussed this issue and stated that a certain amount of square footage was needed for the business that her client runs in his home, and that this may not be feasible Commissioner Paris concurred with the comments of Commissioner Alberio. He asked if there could be a trade-off- for view such as removing some of the trees or perhaps lowering the chimney Ms Perea replied that the chimney could not be lowered according to the Building Code Mr. Charles Blackburn (represent Mr. Vladimir Reil, property owner of 32405 Nautilus Drive) felt that the proposed addition was not designed correctly He suggested that the applicant downsize the proposed addition and set it back further to preserve the view of the ocean from the second story bedroom of 32405 Nautilus Drive Mr. Blackburn stated that the proposed project was too massive and believed that there were other alternatives for the applicant to redesign his proposed second story, but keep within the compatibility of the surrounding neighborhood Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1898 Page 5 Mr Louis Romero. (architect) 24303 Walnut Street, New Hall, CA representing the new owners of 32410 Nautilus (Mr & Mrs Rodriguez) discussed a few suggestions with the applicant in regards to the design of the second story addition Mr Romero suggested that he lower the drop at the back of his home to approximately three feet, eliminate the balcony, and cantilever about four feet over the pool. Mr Romero believed that the applicant could easily do this with the money that he plans to expend Mr. Romero explained that the applicant would not have to drop the ceiling of the proposed addition nor the garage and stated that dropping the ceiling to 6 5 high would not fit with the other homes in the neighborhood Mr Romero suggested that the Commission may consider in the future to post a notice on the property to inform the public of what was proposed, as he felt the silhouette was not very effective Ms. Guity Parsi. (new owner's realtor) 2444 Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA stated that the applicant's proposed second story addition would affect the ocean view of her clients from the living and dining room areas and that the Rodriguez's purchased the property for the view Ms. Parsi stated that she did not know of the proposed addition until late in the process and was surprised by it when she did find out She concluded by saying that she and her client were not informed of this development until July 14, 1998 Commissioner Paris asked Staff when was the silhouette framing constructed and Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that the silhouette was erected on June 13, 1998 Commissioner Paris noted the closing date on the sale of the property was July 29, 1998, and wondered by, during that time Ms Parsi failed to ask about the silhouette. Ms Parsi stated she did not know the purpose of the structure. Commissioner Alberto asked Ms Parsi if the new owner were the only clients that she had shown the property to and Ms. Parsi replied that she had shown the property to approximately 7 to 8 other parties. Mr Albeno felt the agent should have known to ask about the silhouette, and that there would be a duty to disclose this information to potential purchasers. Commissioner Slayden asked if the applicant lowered the roof of the proposed addition to three feet would it make a difference and Ms. Parsi stated her opinion that her client's ocean view would still be impaired. Vice Chairman Cartwright expressed his surprise that one who had been a real estate agent for 16 years would not know a temporary silhouette indicated potential construction Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 6 0 0 Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Commissioner Slayden asked Staff if it was possible that the applicant and the neighbors could compromise on a plan which was acceptable by the City Principal Planner Snow replied that it appeared that the applicant was willing to seek a solution as well as the neighbors. Mr. Snow stated that additional view analysis or a new silhouette may be required, but stated that Staff would be willing to work with the applicant to reach a solution. Chairman Clark asked for Commission comments and discussion on this item Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that since both parties indicated that they would be willing to work together on a compromise he suggested that the Scribney's and Rodriguez's work with Staff to seek a satisfactory resolution, and continue the public hearing to a later date Commissioner Alberio stated that he would approve the proposed project provided that the applicant articulate the second story and the ceilings be lowered in the garage and the second story Chairman Clark stated his belief that there should be a balance between the applicant and the neighbors and particularly felt that there should be more communication involved Chairman Clark was concerned with the bulk and mass of the proposed second story addition and felt that it was not consistent with the neighboring homes. He suggested that the applicant work with Staff in seeking alternative architectural designs to improve the project, address the view impacts, and recommended continuance for the public hearing of this item Commissioner Paris moved to table this item until a later date. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon. Chairman Clark asked if the Public Hearing of this item were continued to a later date would Staff need to obtain a written statement from the applicant indicating this request Assistant Schonborn replied that August 14, 1998 would be the action deadline date however, if the process went past that date, the applicant, must waive the permit streamlining act. Chairman Clark asked the applicant to approach the podium and comment on the suggestion to table this item in order to explore other alternatives for his proposed project Mr Scribney replied that he desired to do so to pursue this matter further, and Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 7 agreed to submit a written waiver of Permit Streamlining Act time limits It was the consensus of the Commission to direct Staff to work with the applicant in resolving issues regarding alternative architectural designs to improve the project in addition to addressing the view impacts at hand Principal Planner Snow asked the Commission if they considered a specific date for continuance of this item Chairman Clark replied since the applicant requested the additional time with his architect, neighbors, and Staff he suggested tabling this item this item until Staff and the applicant are ready to return with a presentation to the Commission on a date certain. Principal Planner Snow reminded the Commission and the public that additional Public Hearing Notices would be sent out to interested parties informing them of the future date for the Public Hearing of this item Chairman Clark called for a roll -call vote to table consideration of this item, direct the applicant to work with Staff to improve the design of the project, address the view impacts, and then return for presentation to the Commission at a future date. The motion passed, (6-0). With no objection from the Commission, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Clark called for a brief recess at 8 20 P M The meeting reconvened at 8,40 P M. and that time the Commission considered Agenda Item No 3 CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Height Variation No. 859 and Site Plan Review No. 798 'Revision'; Al and Kathy Edgerton, 59 Oceanaire Drive. Assistant Planner Louie presented the Staff Report and briefly explained the history of the applicant's past request as well as the current request Ms. Louie stated that although the applicant's past request for a Height Variation was denied in 1997 the Commission encouraged the applicant to work with Staff in re -designing their project After several consultations with Staff, the applicant redesigned their project and requested approval of additions to the existing residence totalling 1,767 square feet consisting of a 1,196 square foot addition to the first floor and a 571 square foot second story addition The proposed height of the addition is twenty-one feet four inches from the highest existing grade covered by structure to the ridge Planning Commission Minutes July 28,1998 Page 8 0 0 Assistant Planner Louie informed the Commission that Staff received 29 letters in opposition of the current proposed project. She stated that a majority of the letters focused on compatibility of the proposed addition with the surrounding neighborhood, and that the approval would set a precedent to allow future construction of second story additions in the Del Cerro Tract which could result in infringement of privacy and view impairment Assistant Planner Louie stated that Staff believed that all the nine findings for granting a Height Variation could be made to allow the proposed second story addition to exceed the sixteen foot height limit. Ms. Louie stated that the proposed protect would not significantly impair the primary view from any surrounding residence and that Staff found the project to be compatible with the neighborhood along Oceanaire Drive Therefore Staff recommended approval of Height Variation No. 859 and Site Plan Review No 7988 - Revision, subject to conditions of approval. Commissioner Paris asked if the opposing residents addressed concerns other than the second story addition and Assistant Planner Louie replied that the residents included other concerns as well. Commissioner Albeno asked what other steps would be required if the applicant decided to utilize two pad levels (by building over the rear yard slope area) instead of two stories as indicated in the proposed project. Assistant Planner Louie replied that the applicant would be required to go through a grading permit process Principal Planner Snow added that grading would be required along with geotechnical analysis since the subject site was located nearby an extreme slope area Mr Snow also stated that setbacks and other aspects of a completely redesigned project would be analyzed by Staff. Chairman Clark asked Staff if they recalled the Commission denying any past Height Variation applications solely due to of the change of character in the neighborhood and to limit homes in an area to one story. Director/Secretary Rojas did not recall a situation where the Commission denied a Height Variation application for a second story addition to keep second story addition out of a neighborhood, but that the Commission in the past, had denied second story additions due to the fact that they were incompatible with the neighboring community Commissioner Paris moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Mrs. Kathy Edgerton. (applicant) 59 Oceanaire Drive, discussed her request for the proposed addition and stated that it would improve the utility of her home and enhance the beauty of the Oceanaire cul-de-sac Mrs Edgerton stated that a previous application was submitted to the City and denied by the Commission in September 1997, but the Commission encouraged her to undertake a redesign of her proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 9 0 0 Mrs Edgerton stated that she had completed that process and that the current proposal incorporated modifications recommended by the Commission when her first request was denied She displayed a photoboard to the Commission and explained that the current proposal was prepared in response to the issues that were raised in the previous application, and requested approval of the current proposed addition Mrs. Edgerton pointed out that the second the second story coverage was reduced from 70% to 15%,, first floor additions were substituted for the previous second story area, the overall size was reduced, and the height was minimized Commissioner Paris asked if the hobby loft was located on the second story and Mrs Edgerton replied that the second story consisted of the Hobby Loft area and a bathroom Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if the Edgerton's were required to loin the homeowners association (Del Cerro) within the last five years and Mrs Edgerton replied that she was not required to loin, but had done so 12 years ago. Mr Cartwright asked if she was a current member of the homeowners association and Mrs. Edgerton replied they had joined the newly reactivated association in March 1998. Commissioner Alberio asked if the applicant considered additional expansion on her property and Mrs Edgerton stated that this was not viable since the proposed project was located nearby an extreme slope and they did not intend to construct down on the slope. Mr. Al Edgerton (applicant) 59 Oceanaire Drive, stated that his wife had explained their current proposed addition and that he would be glad to answer questions for the Commission Chairman Clark asked the project architect if he believed that the aesthetics of the proposed addition (2nd story area) were in balance with the rest of the home. Mr. Gary Lane. (applicant's architect) 500 S Sepulveda Blvd., Manhattan Beach, replied that the intent was to relocate the garage forward and soften the roof lines in back of the home. By incorporating this modification the appearance of the proposed addition would be integrated with the rest of the structure Chairman Clark asked if he looked into relocating additional square footage elsewhere on the site Mr. Lane replied that there were a couple of constraints but he completely remodeled the first level to accommodate as much space as possible on the first floor Mr Lane stated that the swimming pool was located on the first level, but that he was limited since his client desired to maintain some yard space Mr John Cotter, 57 Oceanaire Drive, spoke on behalf of his parents He stated that he, Planning Commission Minutes July 28,1998 Page 10 0 O his parents, and thirty other residents in the Del Cerro Tract opposed the proposed project. Mr Cotter believed that the current proposed project was not a substantial change from the previous proposal He stated that the large south facing windows on the second story level would look over into their pool area, and thereby invaded their privacy Mr Cotter stated his belief that the applicant could acquire the additional square footage without constructing a second story addition. Mr Cotter stated his opinion that the proposed project was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and requested that the Commission direct the applicant to modify the design of the home to a one-story home as such are the other homes in the tract He discussed the CC&R's of the Del Cerro Tract and stated that the CC&R's were instructive of what was intended to be constructed in Del Cerro even though they had lapsed Mr Cotter stated that all the homes in the tract complied with the CC&R's with the exception of two homes. Vice Chairman Cartwright staffed that there was a residence west of Mr Cotter's resident which had a higher elevation with windows looking down towards his property Mr Cartwright asked Mr. Cotter if his privacy concern applied to that home as well. Mr Cotter stated that the Lee's windows appear to look downward below, but did not have line of sight towards the swimming pool area. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the basis for Mr. Cotter's concern with the compatibility of the current proposed addition when he observed six second -story level homes and other multi-level homes on Oceanaire, Ambersky, and Coveview Drive. Mr. Cotter replied that the CC&R's of the Del Cerro Tract allowed construction of one and a half level homes, and that the two homes located on Ambersky and Coveview were incompatible and did not comply with the CC&R's of the Del Cerro Tract, as Mr Cotter did not consider several of the six referenced homes to be two stories. Mr. Timothy J. Cotter, 57 Oceanaire Drive reiterated the comments of his son, John Cotter and then expressed his main concern regarding the privacy infringement resulting from the proposed addition He suggested that the applicant redesign the current proposed addition and requested the Commission deny the Height Variation and approve the Site Plan Review, for a single story home Commissioner Paris asked if redesign of the backwall of the proposed addition would resolve the privacy issue Mr Cotter replied in addition to redesigning the proposed structure for privacy he felt the second story was too massive and incompatible with the neighboring residences Vice Chairman Cartwright asked what was the priontization of his concerns and Mr Cotter replied that his main concern was privacy infringement and the second concern was the massiveness of the proposed second story addition Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Michael Cicoria, 62 Oceanaire Drive, objected to the proposal for the second story addition since he believed it to be in -compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood Mr Cicoria stated that the applicant's home was not the smallest home on the cul-de-sac and believed that the applicant would have enough additional square footage if they were to redesign their project to a one story design He did not think the Edgerton's needed the space that they were proposing based on family size Vice Chairman Cartwright questioned the height of the tower at Mr Cicoria's residence and if he considered the architectural aesthetics to be compatible with the other homes on the cul-de-sac. Mr Cicona replied if he were to construct his home today it would not be possible for him to design the style home in which he lives in today. He strongly believed that once the Commission allows the construction of two-story homes within the Del Cerro Tract it would set a precedent for present and future home buyers in that tract Further he stated that the architectural feature's height was between 25 and 30 feet, and did not feel that his structure was incompatible with the one story character of the neighborhood Commissioner Alberio pointed out that the structure was built under the County's jurisdiction prior to the City's incorporation. Mrs Li-ann Lee 55 Oceanaire Drive, stated that she was in opposition of the current proposal since it would decrease the property value of the other homes in the neighborhood She stated that the current design caused a privacy issue for the Cotters and that it was not compatible with the surrounding homes She asserted that this was a question of principle, and that expansions such as this should not be approved for'non- conforming' properties. Mr. Jim Robinson. 40 Oceanaire Drive, stated that the homeowners were present at the meeting to express the concern of the aesthetic and economic interest in the Del Cerro Tract Mr. Robinson stated that the tract was unique because of its carefully planned and highly creative mix of architecture style He stated that all the homes fit together because of the fall of the roof line and that the homes were designed to be one-story homes in appearance Mr Robinson stated that the homeowners were trying to preserve the rustic - open aesthetic appearance in their neighborhood Mr Eli Amador. (Del Cerro HOA Representative) 23 Crestwind, stated that the homeowners of the Del Cerro Tract strongly objected to the applicant's current proposal of constructing a second story addition Mr. Amador stated that he and other homeowners felt that the design was against the character of the neighborhood and do not desire to see huge mansions constructed within the tract Vice Chairman Cartwright asked when the CC&R's for the tract lapsed and Mr. Amador replied in the 1960's. Mr Amador stated that the homeowners association was Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 12 reconstituted this year and that the members were considering reactivation of the CC&R's. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if the homeowners opposed the six two-story level homes in the neighborhood Mr Amador replied that those homes were constructed when the Del Cerro Tract was formed Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the speaker to clarify his definition of two story homes. The speaker responded that he considered the homes with garages and living space above to be split level or one and a half level structures, not two story homes Mr. Bud Franklin 15 Qceanaire Drive, stated that the issue was that if the addition were permitted it would set a precedent for future construction of second -story level homes in the Del Cerro Tract Mr Franklin agreed with Mr Amador's definition of two story homes, and believed that a number of the homes that Staff considered as two story in the report should be classified as one and a half stories as viewed from the street, since the garages had been excavated into hillsides, or below grade Chairman Clark asked Mr Edgerton to approach the podium for rebuttal Mr. Edgerton stated that the homeowners present at that meeting were concerned about setting a precedent for the construction of second -story level additions within the tract. He stated that he had complied with all of the recommendation from the Commission and strongly believed that each application should be judged on its own merits. Mr. Edgerton requested that the Commission approve his request Commissioner Alberto asked the applicant if he was willing to compromise and sacrifice his pool in order to place the second floor area on the first level The applicant stated that he uses the pool for exercise each day, and that it was not feasible to remove all or part of the pool to make room for the additional floor area Commissioner Paris moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed. Chairman Clark called for Commission questions of Staff Commissioner Paris asked Staff if the applicant was fully cooperative through consultation of the City's code when they made modifications on the current proposed project and Staff replied that the applicant was very cooperative. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if when the applicant's first request was denied, they directed by the Commission to eliminate the second -story level and Staff replied that the applicant was directed to downscale their project, but not expressly to eliminate the second Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 13 story. Chairman Clark stated that there were numerous speakers expressing concerns regarding the Del Cerro Tract CC&R's . He reminded the homeowners that the City does not enforce the CC&R's, only the Development Code. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item. Commissioner Alberio stated that he observed only 2 two-level story homes in the neighborhood using a definition similar to that put forth by Messrs. Franklin and Amador. He informed the Commission that this was observed by Commissioner Vannorsdall and was included in his written comments. Commissioner Alberio felt that the aesthetics of the proposed addition were not pleasant and stated that he would like to see a study made by the applicant and the architect to relocate the garage to the left side of the house and utilize part of the garage area for the living quarters. Commissioner Lyon stated that the design of the current proposed addition was consistent with the previous Commission direction on how to redesign the project, and that as proposed it was acceptable and improved the appearance of the existing home He felt that the home was compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood and that the roof line flowed better In regards to the privacy issue, Mr Lyon believed that the south facing windows would not result in a major invasion and that the opaque -glassed windows facing west solved the privacy issue in that direction He stated that each case should be considered on its own merits. Regarding the number of two story residences in the area, he disagreed with the definition used by certain community members, but rather than arguing the point he believed it is the appearance that matters, not the number of levels. He also believed that the 'needs' of the applicant are a personal matter and should not be questioned in making a decision. In conclusion Mr Lyon expressed his support of the project as proposed and conditioned. Commissioner Paris agreed with the comments of Commissioner Lyon. He believed that the applicant made a sincere effort in redesigning the current proposed project and complied with all recommendations He concurred that family size is an irrelevant issue. Mr. Paris stated that if the Height Variation is approved he would like to see further efforts to relieve the concerns of privacy issues. Commissioner Slayden concurred with Commissioner Lyon and stated that restricting the whole neighborhood to one-story homes was not compatible with the future He stated that the home buyer purchasing in that tract has the right to expand a home within the Code requirements Mr Slayden felt that the applicant proposed an excellent design from that of the previous one and felt that the current proposal was acceptable He felt that the Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 14 privacy issue could be further addressed with landscaping along the western property line Vice Chairman Cartwright agreed with much of what was said by the previous three Commissioners He stated that the applicant had proposed was a second -story level addition last year which seemed to be offensive to the neighborhood The Commission heard public's concerns, denied the project, and gave the applicant guidelines to help improve the design of the project to make it acceptable for the Commission. Vice Chair Cartwright felt that the applicant had gone beyond those guidelines given by the Commission He stated that the current proposal was downsized, set further back from the street, that opaque glass windows minimized the privacy issues, and the design of the proposed addition was compatible with the neighboring homes. Vice Chair Cartwright stated that many of the homeowners were concerned about controlling the designs for future projects He believed that the CC&R's would be the procedure to undergo, but unfortunately there was a lapse time in the CC&R's. Vice Chairman Cartwright informed the public that the Commission is guided by the Development Code, not CC&R's Chairman Clark echoed the comments of Vice Chairman Cartwright and stated that the Commission rejected the applicant's first proposal because of the bulk and mass of the architectural design and the incompatible appearance in the neighborhood Chairman Clark felt that the current proposed addition should not be rejected simply because the homeowners desired not to see future two-story level homes constructed in the tract. Chairman Clark stated that the privacy issue had been mitigated since the west facing windows on the second story were of translucent glass and suggested that it could be enhanced by requiring the applicant to have foliage planted along the property line to address the privacy issue raised by the Cotters Commissioner Lyon moved to accept Staff's recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-28; thereby approving Height Variation No. 859 and Site Plan Review No. 7988 - Revision, subject to conditions of approval. The maker amended his motion to include language in the conditions to the applicant to work with Staff regarding foliage to maintain the privacy for the resident at 57 Oceanaire Drive. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed by a roll -call vote, (5-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period NEW BUSINESS .f�C1it Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 115 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 6. Pre -agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of August 11 1998. Commission None. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) None. UIDX41111►1LLMIM At 10:50 P.M. the meeting was duly adjourned. The motion was made by Commissioner Alberio, seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed (6-0). With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. N \GROUP\PLANNING\PCMIN\MIN07-28 98 Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 16