Loading...
PC MINS 1999052541 10 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 1999 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED 6/$/99 The meeting was called to order at 7,00 p m. by Chairman Cartwright at the Fred Hesse Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Albeno led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag ROLL CALL Present. Commissioners Alberio, Paris, Slayden, and Chairman Cartwright Absent Commissioners Clark, Vannorsdall, and Vice Chair Lyon were excused Also present were Director/Secretary Rous, Associate Planner Mihranian, Assistant Planner Louie, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Paris moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (4-0). COMMUNICATIONS Council Polis Items tems Director/Secretary Rous gave a summary of the planning related items acted upon by the City Council on May 18, 1999 He noted that since the city is beginning preparations to amend the housing element, the City Council approved the submittal of a letter to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) citing City issues regarding the method used to determine the number of affordable housing units which represents the City's fair share He informed the Commission that the amendments to the housing element would be before the Commission either late in 1999 or early 2000. Finally, Director Rojas informed the Commission that the Seabreeze project was before the City Council as work was being performed at the project on a Sunday, contrary to the conditions of approval The owner appeared before the City Council and was warned, but the job was not stopped Staff Director/Secretary Rojas distributed the Resolution related to Item No 5 of the agenda that was inadvertently left out of the agenda packet and an item of late correspondence relating to Item No 2 of the agenda Commission Commissioner Paris asked staff to investigate the retaining wall on Hawthorne Boulevard which extends around Palos Verdes Drive South and stated that different sections of the wall needed repairing CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF MAY 11, 1999 Commissioner Paris pointed out on page 2, the third paragraph down should be omitted as it was discussed at a prior meeting. The Commissioners agreed Commissioner Alberio felt that on page 8 the second on the motion should be clarified Chairman Cartwright pointed out on page 6, third paragraph from the bottom, the word "expedite" should be changed to "determine" Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection, the minutes were approved. Chairman Cartwright felt that, regarding agenda item No 2, there appeared to be several audience members who wished to speak on the subject. He felt it would therefore be more appropriate to remove the item from the Consent Calendar and discuss it during the Public Hearings portion of the agenda. There was no objection from the Commission PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 EXTENSION OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 827 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1887 Magda Kispal (requestor), 7455 Alida Place Director/Secretary Rojas explained that on June 9, 1998 the Planning Commission approved the subject height variation and grading permit. The code establishes a 180 day period for the validity of the height variation approvals PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 2 However, a grading application is valid for one year. The new code has language that requires applications to be processed together as a package In staffs opinion, therefore, the approval of the application package is valid until June 9, 1999 The applicant has requested an additional 6 month extension so that the approvals would be valid until December 9, 1999 Although extensions are usually granted at staff level, the new code stipulates that extensions are to be approved by the body that approved the application The code also states that the extension request does not require a notice or hearing He explained that staff was recommending a one time, one year extension so the approvals would be valid until June 9, 2000, Commissioner Alberio expressed concern over extending these applications longer than the code allows. He asked staff if it would be possible to consult with the city attorney on this issue, as he felt that if two sections of the code are in conflict the stricter meaning of the two should prevail Chairman Cartwright asked staff if they normally try to link applications together for one project Director/Secretary Rous answered that this has always been the practice of the department and it is now required due to the new code amendments Multiple applications for a single project have been linked together because it would not be possible to build the project without approval of all of the applications. Commissioner Paris questioned the reason for the extension Director/Secretary Rous responded that the applicant was requesting the extension so she would have some additional time to submit structural plans into plan check with the Building and Safety Division. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. Magda Kispel (applicant) 7455 Alida Place explained that she was asking for an extension because she wanted to sell the property with approved plans and because her architect has had trouble finishing the plans She stated that her financial situation has dramatically changed as well as the fact that her husband is seriously ill, She stressed that she was not asking for any change to the approvals, simply an extension to allow for the architect to finish the plans for submittal to Building and Safety. Commissioner Paris asked Mrs Kispal to clarify if she had any intention on living on this property or if she just wanted the plans approved so she could sell the lot with approved plans Mrs Kispal answered that they had originally planned to build the home and live there but now they intended to sell the lot with approved plans Mrs Kispal PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 3 questioned whether it mattered who owned the lot when the approved home is being built Commissioner Alberio felt that Mrs Kispal's delay was self -Imposed as she has control over her architect and over the amount of time that has passed since the Planning Commission approval Theodore Shield One World Trade Center, Dong Beach, stated he was representing four of the five residents on Allda Place He stated that after reading the staff report he questioned how much reliance a person could put Into actions by staff and the Commission He stated that a letter to the Klspals granting the height variation stated that the approval was good for only 180 days He further stated that another letter from staff stated that the Height Variation had expired, but the letter did not say anything about one application having 6 months and one year on the other application. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Shield if he understood the explanation the staff gave regarding linking multiple applications together for a single project Mr Shield responded that he did hear the explanation, but there had never been any indication of this in any of the prior correspondence with Mrs Kispal Commissioner Slayden commented to Mr Shield that the Commission had spent considerable time last year in the approval of this project He wondered if this objection to the extension was an attempt to kill the protect Mr. Shield answered the neighbors were never satisfied with the approved project and the main goal of their objection to the extension was that a future owner of the lot would have to submit a new application which could result in a residence that was much more compatible with the neighborhood Harold Reaves 7435 Alida Place stated that when the Commission was hearing this application last year Mrs Kispal had stated that this was a personal project for which she had definite plans to move into in no less than 6 months He also reminded the Commission that at that time he had raised the issue that this was to be a speculation property. He showed the Commission a "real estate spec. sheet" regarding the project dated August, 1998 That was less than 60 days after the discussion of her living on this property. He also pointed out that under the new code this 7,336 square foot proposed residence would actually only be allowed on up to one third of the property, making the residence a maximum of 5,200 square feet He felt that, In reading the correspondence, the height variation had expired and was therefore not subject to an extension Mrs Kispal (in rebuttal) stated that the neighbors do not want to see anything built on this property and that, based on a technicality, they were still trying to kill the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 4 Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris asked staff if, for some reason, this extension request was to be denied, would the applicant then be subject to the new standards of the development code. Director/Secretary Rous answered that the original height variation was submitted and processed under the old development code, therefore any new application would be subject to the standards of the new development code Commissioner Paris then asked staff if the inability to sell a property was a valid reason for an extension. Director/Secretary responded that the code does not address this issue so it would be up to the Commission to determine if that was a valid reason. Chairman Cartwright asked staff to clarify if he was correct in assuming that even though the height variation has technically expired, the grading permit is still valid and whether staff felt that they should have been linked together initially and that is why staff is now recommending a one time, one year extension of the entire application package Director/Secretary Rous agreed Commissioner Slayden asked staff if granting extensions to projects was something that staff did on a routine basis, as he knows there are other projects in the city that have been approved yet have not been built Director/Secretary Rojas agreed that most extensions have been done routinely at a staff level until the adoption of the new development code Commissioner Albeno felt that this was a self imposed hardship on this property and he was inclined to deny the request Commissioner Paris felt that the only reason a request for extension was submitted was because of their inability to sell the property and an attempt to hold on to the old code guidelines He did not feel this was a compelling reason to grant an extension Commissioner Slayden disagreed He felt this was a reasonable request for an extension. Quite a bit of time had been spent on this approval and he believes the applicant should have every opportunity to build it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 5 0 0 Chairman Cartwright agreed with Commissioner Slayden. He recalled the applicant stating she was going to live in the house, however because of a change in financial status and the illness of her husband that was no longer possible He felt that constituted a substantial hardship and was inclined to approve the extension He further observed that it was fairly obvious that any vote taken tonight would end in a tie, therefore he suggested continuing the item to the next meeting when the full Commission would be in attendance Chairman Cartwright moved to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The motion failed (2-2) with Commissioners Alberio and Paris dissenting. Commissioner Alberio moved to deny the extension, in which case the current approval will expire on June 9, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The motion failed (2-2) with Commissioner Slayden and Chairman Cartwright dissenting. Commissioner Alberio pointed out that if the Planning Commission denies the time extension the applicant always has the option of appealing the decision to the City Council. Director/Secretary Rous explained that if the Commission denies the extension Mrs Kispal will have until June 9, 1999 to submit plans to Building and Safety for plan check, otherwise the approvals will expire He stated that it is the policy of the Department that, if a project has gone through a public hearing process which results in a Planning Commission final decision, the Department should try to maintain that decision for as long as possible. The code also states that if any development permit becomes null and void it can be reissued by the Director if no changes to the plans are being proposed, if it has been less than one year, and half the application fee is paid Chairman Cartwright stated that if there is a good reason to deny this extension he has not yet heard it He felt it would cause a hardship on the owners to deny the extension Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the item to the June 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to receive an opinion from the City Attorney as to the policy of linking applications together that expire at different times, seconded by Chairman Cartwright. The motion passed, (4-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.08 p m. the Commission took a short recess until 8,18 p m at which time they reconvened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 6 0 0 3 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO 8554 MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO 545 AND GRADING PRMIT NO 2111 Abraham Witteles 4714 Browndeer Lane Assistant Planner Louie presented the staff report She explained the applicant was attempting to legalize a non -permitted retaining wall located along the front, street side of the property In addition, the applicants desire to install a 1'8" to 2'6" high wrought iron fence above the retaining wall, giving the wall an overall height of 6 feet. She stated that staff had contacted the Public Works Department to determine if the proposal would obstruct any oncoming traffic The Senior Engineer in Public Works, David McBride, determined that the building pad in the front yard area is at a higher elevation than the top of the retaining wall, and the wall does not control site visibility at the intersection of Browndeer Lane and Lone Valley Drive He determined there would be no obstruction to oncoming traffic Furthermore, staff felt the fence was needed to serve as a protective barrier to the residence and their children since the front yard is higher than the adjacent street level. Commissioner Slayden asked staff if this approval would affect the grape stake fence currently on the property Assistant Planner Louie answered that the fence was not a part of this approval as it had been previously approved. She stated the applicant could replace the grape stake fence with wrought iron without city approval. Commissioner Paris stated his concern regarding traffic visibility as one travels down the hill at the intersection He stated there is no stop sign there and going down hill you may not see the car coming from the left. Assistant Planner Louie replied that the senior engineer had performed a careful analysis and had determined that there was no hazardous obstruction to traffic, and due to the height and the fence being situated further in from the curb there was sufficient visibility. Commissioner Paris asked if the Commission was setting a dangerous precedes in not only allowing an illegally constructed retaining wall, but then allowing the owner to add to it Assistant Planner Louie answered that staff was able to make the findings for allowing the owners to exceed the allowable height Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 7 Dr. Abe Witteles (applicant) 4714 Browndeer Lane felt staff did an excellent job in the staff report in describing the circumstances and the need for the retaining wall He stated the retaining wall was built at the same time that an extensive addition and remodel was taking place He was under the assumption that the retaining wall was included in the permit for the addition, as the retaining wall was needed to stabilize the side of the hill He was not aware that the retaining wall was unpermitted until he applied for the wrought iron fence permit. He emphasized the reason for the wrought iron fence was to prevent residents, especially the children, from falling from the front yard and side yard to a very hard concrete sidewalk 42 inches below Commissioner Paris wondered if the applicant was planning to add spikes to the top of the wrought iron fence Dr Witteles responded that no spikes would be used on the top Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris repeated his concern regarding the view interference for persons driving down hill and looking around the corner to the left. He wondered if the retaining wall could be dropped in height a little to help improve visibility Commissioner Slayden felt that if the senior engineer of the Public Works Department felt there was no view problem he was satisfied Commissioner Slayden moved to approve Site Plan Review No. 8554, Minor Exception Permit No. 545, and Grading Permit No. 2111 as presented, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No 99-17, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The motion passed, (4-0). Chairman Cartwright called to the applicant's attention that one of the Commissioners felt they should take a closer look at intersection visibility and if they felt there was something they could do to improve it they might consider taking that action 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 REVISION 'EEE', VARIANCE NO. 442 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2112 Stewart Trusts (applicant) 2909 Vista Del Mar Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that the property was located in the Seacliff Hills development and at the time the tract was created the developer had intended to subdivide the lots and build private residences However, the lots were sold individually to be developed with custom homes A Conditional Use Permit was approved at that time by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 8 i 0 Planning Commission that established the building footprints for each lot. Therefore, any revision to the structure requires a revision to the CUP He explained that the applicant was requesting to build 670 square feet on the lower level of the home, 400 would be built under an existing balcony By definition, that creates a roof deck which is prohibited under the development code He explained the other segments of the addition and stated that staff recommends approval of the application Commissioner Alberio commented that he did not think this type of situation was what the code intended in its restriction of roof decks He felt the intent was to prohibit decks built on top of a house, where this situation is more like a balcony Chairman Cartwright agreed that the intent of prohibiting roof decks does not really apply in this situation Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Roslyn Stewart (applicant) 2903 Vista Del Mar stated that staff had done an excellent job in the staff report and she was available to answer any questions the Commission may have Director/Secretary Rojas commented that staff realizes that the prohibition of roof decks has created problems for applicants when designing additions or new homes, and that staff has been contemplating an interpretation of the code section that will try to allow situations where a roof deck is beneficial as a design He commented that if the Commission has concerns on this issue that they might want to agendize this item for discussion. Chairman Cartwright thought that was an excellent idea to discuss at the next joint City Council / Planning Commission workshop Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23 - Revision EEE, Variance No. 442, and Grading Permit No. 2112 as presented by staff, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-18, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (4-0). Chairman Cartwright stated that the Planning Commission does support the intentions of the City Council to ensure that no roof decks are allowed to be built, however in this case because of unusual and exceptional circumstances, the deck should be allowed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 9 0 5. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 8439 and SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 8439 Olympia Greer (applicant), Brent Meyer and Nancy Parsons (owner), 7361 Berry Hill Drive Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report explaining the proposal was to add to the detached garage 85 square feet and construct a 425 square foot second story room addition over the garage He stated the proposed project does not obstruct the views from any of the neighboring properties nor does it result in any unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the occupants of adjacent properties. However staff did not feel the project met the requirements of neighborhood compatibility He stated staff had concerns with the bulk and mass of the project In addition the proposed structure does not meet setback requirements Based on the bulk of the structure and the location of the existing garage at the front of the property, staff recommended denial of the height variation, but approval of Site Plan Review 8439 via minute order for an 85 square foot addition to the detached garage Chairman Cartwright asked staff if their main concern was the 20 foot high structure being built at the front of the property. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the finding for neighborhood compatibility could not be made because of where the addition is situated on the property, the fact that it is a detached structure close to the street, and the adjoining residences do not have similar additions on detached garages He commented that the architect had done a tremendous job in trying to address the design issues and soften the bulk and mass of the project, but staff could not make the neighborhood compatibility finding. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Olympia Greer (applicant) 267 Palos Verdes Drive West, Palos Verdes Estates explained a little of the background involved with this project She stated the owners desired a space that would be used as an office area The intent was to create a useable attic space She attempted to mitigate the impact the addition would have. She pointed out that there were several other two story residences in the area She disagreed with the statement in the staff report that this is a "pop up" design She felt that was a biased point of view and clarified her belief that what was being proposed was useable attic space, not a pop up She stated when she proposed this project to her clients she also had alternative proposals for them to consider. She stated when she showed staff the different alternatives it was suggested she abandon the idea of going out toward the sidewalk, which would require a variance She was told it would be best for her to expand out toward the side She also had originally designed an exterior stairway that was toward the rear of the addition She said that staff indicated PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 10 ! 0 that if she removed the exterior stairs then basically the design was acceptable to staff Therefore, she placed the stairway inside the garage She commented that she complied with all of the staff's recommendations and was surprised to learn that staff was recommending denial of the project Commissioner Slayden asked if her client had considered a second story addition onto the main portion of the house Ms. Greer responded that they had originally considered that, but due to the fact that they had a new baby in the house they were not willing to disrupt their lives as much. Commissioner Slayden asked if there was room in the back of the house for an addition. Ms Greer answered that there was room but the overall layout of the house would have to be changed Chairman Cartwright stated he had gone to the house three times and was very concerned with the apparent bulk and massiveness of the proposed addition when you turn the corner onto Berry Hill Drive. He drove throughout the neighborhood trying to find something similar, and though he did find second story additions he did not find anything comparable to the mass and bulk that this would create. He felt that connecting the main structure with some part of the garage might be an alternative to soften the appearance of the project. Ms. Greer stated that the garage does leap at you as you turn the corner as it is the only visible portion of the house Once you come around the corner you begin to perceive the angle of the entire house. Brent Meyer (owner) 7361 Berry Hill Drive stated he had considered a second story addition onto the residence and three or four other variations to the addition. He felt it came down to whether they could disrupt their lives for 9 to 12 months for construction with a new baby and they decided they could not do that He considered building off of the master bedroom but felt that was not feasible He also considered filling in the space between the residence and the garage, however they would loose the garden area and leave two bedrooms with no windows. Therefore the only viable option was to build over the garage He commented that he had taken the proposed plans to all of the neighbors and received no complaints He agreed that the garage is a prominent structure as you come around the corner. He felt that his proposal was compatible with the neighborhood as there are several two story homes with the detached garages in the front of the property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 11 • Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris felt that the best possible solution for this project was presented, however he did not feel that this solution was compatible with the neighborhood He did not feel this solution would work. Commissioner Slayden agreed that this project would not be compatible with the neighborhood and did think that, though it is well designed, this constituted a "pop up" He did feel the project would be compatible if the second story were proposed over the residence Commissioner Alberio complimented the architect on the outstanding job she did on the project, but did not feel there was anything that could be done to allow an addition over the garage He felt an addition would be possible, just not over the garage and wondered if the item should be continued to allow the applicants to modify the plan and bring it back to the Commission Chairman Cartwright felt the drawings looked very nice but when you go out to the property it became clear that it was not compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Cartwright moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Chairman Cartwright stated to Ms Greer that she had heard the concerns of the Commission and he felt she was entitled to be heard once again as she had worked long and hard to get the application presented to the Commission He stated he would be reluctant to pass a motion for continuance If the applicant was not agreeable to further modify the project. He clarified that if the Commission denies the project they will have to start over, however if it is continued then it may be less costly to the client. Ms Greer questioned where this project went wrong She did not have any idea that staff was going to recommend denial until the staff report was written Director/Secretary Rojas acknowledged that the architect does her homework on her projects by coming to the counter to consult with the planners He noted that staff identified design issues early on that needed to be addressed and that is why the architect came up with different designs to try to soften the proposal Once the application was formally submitted to staff and staff had a chance to conduct its neighborhood compatibility analysis, staff realized that as much as the architect had done to soften the design, it was not something they could recommend for approval He stated that Assistant Planner Schonborn met with the architect before the staff report was written to go over staff's concerns. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 12 0 0 Chairman Cartwright stated that staff makes recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Commission will make the decision on the project. Commissioner Paris wondered if a revised structure over the garage would produce the same conclusion from the Commission and secondly, if they would be able to get the square footage they need by cutting the size of the addition down He wondered if any revisions to the current design would be practical for the applicant, and regardless of the revisions may not be acceptable to the Commission Ms. Greer stated that she never received negative feedback from the staff when she submitted her application She did not feel there was ever a process for improving the design, as the current design was looked at and considered a viable project from the beginning Commissioner Slayden responded that from experience a two story addition separate from a house on the street will probably not be approved. He felt that the direction from the Commission now is, where else on this property do you want to put an addition Mr Meyer stated that he has already worked with the planners and gone to the Planning Commission and spent thousands of dollars on the application and design. If someone had told him from the beginning that this design was not going to be approved he would not have spent the time and money to move the project forward. Chairman Cartwright stated that staff cannot tell an applicant that a height variation will or will not be approved, as that is a decision to be made by the Planning Commission Director/Secretary Rous apologized for the final outcome but explained that staff is in a difficult situation when a project is first proposed because applicants wish to have a definite answer on whether a project will be approved or not Although staff does identify concerns with a project, staff will stop short of saying no to a project since staff s role is to make recommendations to the Planning Commission and staff does not want to be accused of pre fudging any project before the notice is published and public comments are received Mr. Meyer stated that there is no way to resolve this issue as far as a pop up is concerned Commissioner Slayden moved to closed the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 13 Commissioner Slayden moved to deny without prejudice Height Variation No. 879, and approve Site Plan Review No. 8439 via minute order, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-19, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The motion passed, (4-0). 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 151 -REVISION 'G' Warmington Homes & Pacific Heritage Development (applicants), Tract 46651, Crest Road & Highridge Road Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He stated the applicant was requesting that the approved Conditional Use Permit be amended to delete the condition of approval that requires the developer to submit to the city a covenant to maintain property to protect views for each individual lot. Staff felt the request was reasonable as on December 17, 1996 the City Council decided it will not enforce any covenants to maintain property to protect views The City Council also decided it would no longer require covenants to protect views at that time The final tract map for this project was adopted August 13, 1997 which is after the adoption of the City Council policy decision Further, there are other conditions of approval that would remain in effect that limit the height of landscaping and are in the tract. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if failure to remove the covenant requirement at the time of the final map approval was an oversight. Assistant Planner Schonborn acknowledged that it was an oversight. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if the Commission were to deny this request, was it true that the City Council policy is to not enforce any convenants Assistant Planner Schonborn agreed. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden, with no objection. Bob Pittman 113 Timbre Rancho, Santa Margarita, representing Pacific Heritage Development requested approval from the Planning Commission and stated the approval would have no material affect on the project. He stated he was available for any questions Tom Alley 6304 Sattes Drive stated his home is adjacent to the project. He said when he first read about this request in the paper his assumption was that the landscaping was going to be permitted to grow as high as it wanted After hearing that landscape restrictions were going to be maintained in the CC&R's then he had no objection to the request. He further stated that it appeared the lot next to his house has started foundation work. He did not feel the lot is in conformance with the grading plan and requested staff check the lot. It appears PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 14 the slope facing his house is a 1 ,l 1 slope, where the grading plan calls out for a 2.1 slope It was his understanding that the lot should have been in conformance before construction began Director/Secretary Rous stated that he was aware of Mr. Alley's concerns but was not aware that construction had started on the lot. He commented that would contact the owners and have staff check it out. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road voiced her concern over the drainage from the Seabreeze development into the canyon Chairman Cartwright stated that the matter of the drainage had been referred to the Public Works Department and asked staff to check with that department to see what decisions had been made. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The public hearing was closed without objection. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 151 - Revision G as presented, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-20, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The motion was approved, (4-0). COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed the possibility of land movement that is evident at Rue Beaupre. She also discussed the increased traffic that is evident along Palos Verdes Drive South She reminded the Commission that when it comes time to vote on the York proposal they should consider the traffic problems. She also discussed the possibility of having council districts in the city so that every portion is adequately represented Finally she discussed the city insisting trees be cut on property owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District and the money the school district is spending to fight the city ADJOURNMENT At 10.18 p m Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, June 8, 1999 in the Community Room at Hesse Park. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed with no objection, (4-0) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1999 PAGE 15