Loading...
PC MINS 20000222CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 2000 Approved 3/ The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p m by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Room 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Recording Secretary Peterson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Paris, Slayden, and Chairman Cartwright Although he was excused from the meeting, Vice Chairman Lyon arrived at 10*40 p m Absent Commissioner Vannorsdall was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, Assistant Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Louie, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the agenda as presented seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council: 1) Initiated a code amendment regarding code enforcement and the View Restoration process, 2) Initiated a code amendment regarding the color of realtor signs in the public right-of-way; and 3) Granted a fee waiver to waive the penalty fees for Conditional Use Permit No. 27, regarding a commercial antenna on Oceanaire Drive. Director/Secretary Rojas distributed five items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No 4 He also updated the Commission on the status of several major projects proposed in the City. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 8, 2000 Chairman Cartwright pointed out typos on pages 2, 4, and 9 of the minutes. Commissioner Clark moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The minutes were approved, (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 192 — Revision `B' and Site Plan Review No. 8596, Paul Wolcott (applicant) 5837 Crest Road Commissioner Paris stated that since he has professional dealings with the Seaview Villas Homeowners Association he felt he should recuse himself from hearing this application. Assistant Planner Schonborn began the staff report by briefly explaining what had occurred at the past Planning Commission meetings regarding the project. He explained that the current proposal called for the new monopole to be located 11 feet from the location of the existing monopole structure. He reviewed the size and location of the proposed panel antennas. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings, and recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. Commissioner Slayden asked if staff was aware of any other cellular operation that would be requesting space on this monopole as it expands. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the three major cellular operators were all currently located at the California Water Service site and that staff was not aware of any other companies requesting use of the site. Paul Wolcott 257 Van Ness Way, Torrance (applicant) stated that the concerns of the residents were taken into account and a discussion followed with California Water Service on how to address those concerns A new site for the monopole was identified which is approximately 11 feet to the east of the existing monopole, away from the residences. He felt that this solution was one that works for everyone involved Commissioner Alberio asked if there was a possibility that more antennas would be added to the monopole some time in the future. Mr. Wolcott responded that no further antennas would be required at this facility Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 2 Chairman Cartwright asked why the existing location could not be used for the new monopole. Mr. Wolcott answered that according to his engineer the existing pole has a 15 -foot foundation Directly to the south of the pole is an existing electrical and sewer lines and the existing equipment for PacBell and Sprint are approximately 5 feet to the east and west of the existing pole In order to remove the existing pole it would have to be cut into sections, and since a backhoe could not be used in the area, a jackhammer would have to be used to remove the foundation. There were also safety concerns because of the condition of the soil and the close proximity of the utilities Cam Garcia 10 Seaview Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, stated that he has a great appreciation for the procedure used to resolve the controversial issues of this project and commended the Commission on the handling of these issues. He felt that the relocation of the monopole 11 feet to the east of the existing structure satisfies his primary concerns and therefore no longer has any objections to the project. He recommended that every effort be made to camouflage the monopole to hide it from view on the north side. Linda Navarro 12 Seaview Drive South Rolling Hills Estates, stated that she was the president of the Seaview Villas HOA and that Airtouch had addressed their concerns, and that they appreciated the Planning Commission's handling of their concerns. She expressed a concern that there would be many more antennas in the future. Joe Riggio 22 Seaview Drive South Rolling Hills Estates, stated he was pleased that the monopole was now moved further from the Seaview Villas and with this modification he no longer has objections to the project. He too would like to see some type of landscaping to help camouflage the monopole Tom Alley 6304 Sattes Drive stated that he owns the property at 17 Seaview Drive South He explained that he was at his property looking at the area of the proposed antenna and that the antenna would still be visible from his property, but not as visible as it was in the original location. Therefore, he did not have an objection to this new proposal. He understood that if any changes were to be made to this proposal the homeowners' association would be notified Commissioner Albeno asked Mr. Wolcott about the camouflaging of the monopole Mr. Wolcott responded that the staff report did address the issue with provisions as to the colors used to paint the structure and provisions for landscaping He stated that Airtouch would work with staff in any way they could Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Slayden moved to accept staff recommendations as presented thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2000-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 192 'B' and Site Plan Review No. 8596, seconded by Commissioner Clark. Approved, (4-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Variance No. 467, Richard and Jackie Hess (applicant) 4100 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Albeno asked if there was anyone in the audience opposed to this project. There was nobody in the audience opposing the project. Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the reading of the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection, the staff report was waived. Commissioner Paris noted that the staff report stated there were two six foot by six-foot poles, he corrected it to read two six-inch by six-inch poles. Commissioner Cartwright opened the public hearing Commissioner Cartwright asked the applicant if they had read the staff report and the conditions and recommendations attached to it, and if he was in agreement with the recommendations. Richard Hess 4100 Palos Verdes Drive East (applicant) stated that he had read the staff report and the conditions of approval and was primarily in agreement with these recommendations. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the staff recommendations with the one modification noted by Commissioner Paris, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2000-07 approving Variance No. 467 subject to the Conditions in Exhibit 'A', seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The project was approved, (5-0). 4. Appeal of Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No. 8637, Sanjay Celly (applicant), Andrew and Yukie Landisman (appellant), 27046 Springcreek Road, Brad Duschak and Heidi Knight (appellant), 27040 Whitestone Road, Fatima Lakhani (appellant), 27040 Springcreek Road. Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report, beginning with a brief history of the project. She explained that since the original project, the applicant has: 1) reduced the overall square footage; 2) revised the second story addition so that it is setback from the first story fagade resulting in a greater setback from the rear property line; 3) eliminated the balcony, 4) changed the architectural style from Mediterranean to Ranch Style; and 5) lowered the ridge height from 24'3" to 23'9" With these modifications staff was able to make all required findings for the height variation. Therefore the Director of Planning, Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 4 Building, and Code Enforcement approved the project. The decision was subsequently appealed Ms Louie explained that the appellants listed four issues and five concerns with the project She discussed in detail two of the four issues: neighborhood compatibility and infringement of privacy. She discussed the issue of neighborhood compatibility and how the height variation guidelines required staff to analyze the ten closest homes to determine neighborhood compatibility. She explained that staff also reviewed the entire tract within and beyond the 100 -foot radius in order to address the concerns received from the residents. Staff determined that the overall tract included two story -split level homes, and one and two story residences. Due to the variation within the tract staff determined that the proposed addition would be compatible with the type of residences found within the tract. She pointed out that according to the Development Code, split level homes are considered two-story residences The Director determined that the structure height was acceptable and did not need to be lowered since the proposed project did not significantly impair the view from another parcel and none of the adjacent residences have a view in the direction of the proposed addition. As for the second issue, Ms Louie explained that the original proposal and balcony did create an infringement of privacy, since the windows had direct views overlooking most of the appellants (Landisman and Lakhani) rear yards. As a result, the applicant modified the original proposal to address these concerns. The appellants submitted diagrams indicating that most of the backyard area will still be visible, however a privacy analysis was conducted from the applicant's roof before and after the project revisions. At that time it was determined that due to the new setback distance of the second story level and the elimination of the rear balcony, neither the second story addition nor the bay window would allow direct views onto most of the rear yard area of Dr. Landisman Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision. Chairman Cartwright asked if any of the second story additions in the tract were constructed through the height variation process. Associate Planner Louie answered that she knew of at least one that went through the height variation process. Commission Clark asked if the Director would have approved the project had the applicant not revised their original application to take into account both staff and neighbor concerns. Director/Secretary Rous explained that he had met with the applicants to inform them that he could not recommend approval of the project as presented originally. Chairman Cartwright stated that the picture board that was circulated earlier showed pictures taken out over the trellis He asked staff how those pictures were taken. Associate Planner Louie answered that the pictures were taken from the roof at the spot of the proposed windows in the master bedroom and the bay window Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Paris asked staff to comment on the accuracy of the simulated views presented on pages 9-5 and 9-6 of the appeal letter. Associate Planner Louie stated that although she had reviewed these simulations, staff had not verified the accuracy. However she noted that it does follow the silhouette and the windows appear to be in the correct location. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Chairman Cartwright allowed speakers to relinquish their speaking time to another speaker. The appellants requested that they speak after the others opposing the project Hu Sing Lam 27027 Whitestone Drive, stated the he was opposed to the project. Gibson Reaves 27125 Whitestone Drive, stated he too was opposed to the project He stated the objections were presented in detail in their letter of November 18, 1999 He did not feel these objections were adequately addressed in the Notice of Decision dated December 16, 1999 or in any subsequent communications. He stated his objections were that the proposed addition would decrease the value of the surrounding homes and would increase the population density of the neighborhood, resulting in an increase in congestion and pollution. He felt that in the Notice of Decision should be written in a more precise way. He pointed out that on page 2, item 7 states that the one four by six window that is located on the northern side of the structure is not permitted with this approval. He understood a four -foot by six-foot window was not approved, but did that mean that a five-foot by seven -foot window was okay. He felt that since the project had been redesigned it should be necessary for the applicants to survey the nearby property owners for their approval or disapproval Lastly, he stated that the purpose of the code was to protect the property values of the properties in Rancho Palos Verdes He felt that a major professional responsibility of the Planning Commission was to exercise their wisdom and experience in making sure that not only the detailed regulations of the code are followed, but the purposes of the code is to protect the property values. Commissioner Clark asked Mr Reaves why he thought this project would impact property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Reaves answered that he had talked to several people and asked them if they would buy a home next to one that is so much larger than the others in the neighborhood He stated that they had all said "no". Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Reaves if he felt there were any other homes in the tract that were similar to the proposed residence Mr. Reaves felt there were many homes similar to the proposed project, however he felt that just because a mistake was made in approving those two story homes, the mistake Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 6 should not continue to occur. He stated he did not believe in setting a precedent with the mistakes of the two story homes that were already built. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Reaves to explain his concern in the increase in population and pollution if this project were approved. Mr Reaves responded that a house this large could, in the future, house a dozen people. The larger the house, the more people that could possibly live in it. He added that the issue was not so much a loss of privacy in the neighborhood, but rather a matter of added light to the neighborhood He discussed his preference for a dark sky to be able to see the Milky Way and the loss of aesthetic quality Charlotte Dean 5916 Clint Place, stated that several years ago she was before the Planning Commission to oppose a two-story addition on Clint Place, which the Planning Commission approved. She explained that if you go to Clint Place and view the massive house built there, you would understand the opposition to this proposal. She stated that rights of the neighbors were violated and their lives affected by the lack of interest of the Planning Commission to maintain the compatibility of the neighborhood She understood that a "far view" is not considered under the Development Code, but she felt that it should be taken under consideration. She stated that the Rancho Palos Verdes residents needed protection against future expansion in their neighborhoods. She urged the Commission to consider the neighbor's views and make a wise decision on the fate of the community. She asked the Commission to avoid any further approvals of such mansions as the one on Clint Place and keep the beauty and charm of the area. Commissioner Clark explained that members of the Planning Commission serve on a voluntary basis and have a strong interest in the City. He felt that Ms. Dean's characterization of the Planning Commission having a lack of interest was not accurate. The decision of the Planning Commission did not go the way Ms Dean wanted it to on Clint Place, but he assured her that each and every Planning Commissioner that participated in the discussion gave due consideration to the neighbors views, as they will tonight. Chairman Cartwright asked Ms. Dean if she had looked at the plans for the proposed residence. Ms. Dean stated that she had not looked at the plans. Chairman Cartwright asked if she was opposed to the project because of the size and bulk. Ms. Dean answered that she was opposed to the size and bulk Kiyotaka Mori 27035 Whitestone Drive, stated he lived next door to the proposed project and was concerned about the views into his pool area and the additional weight and Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 7 a pressure that will be added to the land on Whitestone Drive. He was also concerned that the structure will not be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Alberio understood Mr. Mori's concern over the geology of the area and assured him that the City was also concerned with that aspect and this issue would be reviewed by the City's geologist. Chairman Cartwright asked if Mr Mori had discussed his privacy concerns with the applicants. Mr. Mori answered that he had not discussed his concerns with the applicants. He stated that by looking at the silhouette concerns were raised that the applicants would be able to look into his pool area and backyard. Chi Chen 27034 Spring Creek Road gave her speaking time to the appellants Jacob Hsu 27034 Spring Creek Road gave his speaking time to the appellants. Ark Hsu 27103 Whitestone Road, stated that he was opposed to the project and felt that the project was not compatible to the neighborhood. He discussed a loss of privacy in that he felt the applicants would be able to look into his home from their second story windows He thought the applicants could achieve their needs with a different design. Thea Priest 27054 Spring Creek Road gave her time to the appellants. John Priest 27054 Spring Creek Road, was opposed to having a large two-story house built at the top of a slope looking down at his home below. He did not agree that a split- level home was the same as a two-story home. Mary Reaves 27125 Whitestone Drive, felt that "inadequate parcel of land" described this project. She gave her remaining time to the appellants. Colette Hester 26945 Spring Creek Road gave her time to the appellants. Fatima Lakhani (appellant) 27040 Spring Creek Road, stated her main objection to the project was that from the second story it would be possible to look into her living area and bedroom area. She was concerned that by signing the early neighborhood consultation paper it might be mistaken that she supported the project She stressed that her privacy would be infringed upon and requested the applicants put themselves in her shoes and look at the project from her perspective. Chairman Cartwright asked if Ms. Lakhani if she had seen the photo board that had circulated earlier in the meeting. He displayed the photo board and stated that it was his understanding that staff stood on the roof of the applicant's house when taking these pictures The pictures were taken from the spot where the windows would be located Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 8 He asked Ms. Lakhani if, after viewing this photo board, she stili had the same privacy concerns Ms. Lakhani could not be sure. Commissioner Clark explained that the early neighborhood consultation process was not to get approval or disapproval from the neighbors, signing merely confirmed that they were aware that their neighbor was proposing an addition to their residence Commissioner Alberio asked if some type of fence or hedge were built halfway up the slope to help eliminate the privacy issue, would she be satisfied with that. Ms Lakhani responded that she could not afford to put in a fence or hedge. Heidi Knight (appellant) 27040 Whitestone Road gave her speaking time to Mr. Duschak. Yukie Landisman (appellant) 27046 Spring Creek Road, explained to the Commission that the night before tonight's meeting her husband had gone to a nearby neighbor who was very ill, and came upon the applicants at the front door. She did not feel the applicants were respectful or compassionate for the ill neighbor and cared only for their addition She understood that the applicants had modified their proposal, but the addition was still an invasion on their privacy She stated that this addition may be the applicant's dream, but she and her husband also live in their dream house. Commissioner Clark stated that it was clear from the testimony that even after the revisions there were still privacy issues. He asked Mrs. Landisman if that was her main objection or if she objected to any additions to the home. Mrs. Landisman stated her main objection was privacy. Brad Duschak (appellant) 27040 Whitestone Drive, pointed out on a map where his home was in relationship to the applicant's property, which is across the street. He stated that the Cellys were good neighbors, and the objection concerned the neighborhood compatibility and privacy. He again referred to the map and stated that all of the neighbors abutting the project were in opposition to it. Mr. Duschak stated that the Code says there are nine findings that must be made to approve a Height Variation. He and Mr Landisman were going to discuss four of these findings 1) The early neighborhood consultation process; 2) Neighborhood compatibility, 3) The structure located on a promontory, and 4) Privacy of abutting residences Andrew Landisman (appellant) 27046 Spring Creek Road, discussed the issue of privacy and stated that the original staff report omitted the southwest bedroom window from the privacy analysis, even though it is closest to the Lakhani property and his property In contrast to what the report states, Mr. Landisman stated that the master bedroom window would overlook the Spring Creek backyards He did not feel that Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 9 existing vegetation provides any privacy for their interiors. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, Mr. Landisman demonstrated on the map which homes were used for the neighborhood compatibilty analysis He pointed out one home that was beyond 100' from the subject site was included in Staffs analysis, however several homes within 100' on Spring Creek Road were not included. He noted that the file received by the Commission omits the original letter written before the notice was sent out by the City, dated July 17, 1999 which discussed how important the rear windows were since they created infringement of privacy. He discussed privacy and felt that their outdoor privacy will be completely invaded and their indoor privacy will also be lost. Mr. Duschak distributed photographs that were taken at night which showed what he felt the end view would be from the southwest bedroom. The photographs showed that if the blinds were not closed the applicants could look directly into their homes. Commissioner Paris asked how this analysis could be accurate if they did not get on the roof of the applicant's house. Mr. Duschak replied that this was an approximation taken from Mrs. Lakhani's property. On the back of the photograph is a scale drawing showing how the picture was calculated to the best of their ability. He stated that in the staff report the implication was that indoor privacy has no weight. He very strongly disagreed with that. Mr Landisman stated that at the time they purchased their home there were no lights from neighboring homes that could be seen from his backyard. He stated this was a key criteria in purchasing the house He felt the second story windows will be light sources that will impact his hobby of astronomy by shining into the backyard. Commissioner Clark state he was having difficulty understanding the orientation of the views presented in the pictures distributed by Mr Duschak in relation to staffs view board with the views from the original project and the revised project. Mr. Landisman reviewed the staff photo board He acknowledged that he had not been on the Celly's roof. However, when he stands in his backyard he can clearly see in the silhouette where the southwest bedroom window will be sticking out. He felt that staffs photos were taken from what will be the master bedroom. Chairman Cartwright noted that Mr. Landisman did not think that existing vegetation provided privacy. He asked Mr. Landisman if he thought a hedge or fence across the slope would help with privacy. Mr. Landisman answered by explaining that the staff report of December 13, 1999 stated that existing vegetation would provide a privacy protection. He disputed that statement. Chairman Cartwright discussed the issue of neighborhood compatibility He explained that the Development Code directs staff to analyze a specific radius and does not take Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 10 into consideration homes on different streets. Staff is bound by the Development Code and does not have the latitude to change it on a case by case basis. He also asked Mr. Landisman about his hobby of astronomy and wondered if at the time Mr. Landisman purchased his home if he was under the impression that none of the homes above him would be allowed to add a second story. Mr. Landisman stated that he never believed the neighborhood would not change. The point he was trying to make was that this addition would loom over his yard and the entire west (rear) wall of the second story will be visible from anywhere in his backyard and therefore his entire yard will be visible to the Cellys. He stated that the window in the southwest bedroom was the most visible, by far, and if that bedroom could not be seen that would alleviate the problem as far as astronomy. As the revised proposal exists, it will impact astronomy. Mr. Duschak then discussed the issue of neighborhood compatibility. He felt the proposal was completely incompatible with the immediate neighborhood in every aspect. He stated that the significant incompatibility was the square footage of the project, the apparent mass, and the ridge height. He displayed a graph showing the average square footage, apparent mass, and ridge height of the properties in a 500 -foot radius. He explained that according to this graph the applicants proposed structure was well beyond anything that currently exists as the square footage was 75 percent more than the average, the apparent mass was almost double than average, and the ridge height was 10 feet 3 inches above everyone else. He did not think there were any two- story houses on Whitestone Road He displayed a map of the neighborhood showing split-level homes on Whitestone Road and Spring Creek Drive He explained that all of the split-level homes developed by the original contractor were dug out on the north slope on the east side of the street He stated that the proposed project is not on the east side of the street and not dug out of a hill, but rather on the west side of the street one lot away from the highest point on Whitestone Road. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had in their possession 53 letters written from neighbors who opposed the project In the 100 -foot radius there were 12 out of 14 people, over 85 percent, who have indicated that they do not want a two-story residence on their street. He stressed that this was not a vendetta against the Cellys, rather it was an issue of neighborhood compatibility He stated there were two real two-story houses in the tract, both on Spring Creek Road. He explained they were both on the east side of the street, down from the ridge, with low elevation impact. He next discussed what a two-story house was. He explained the split-level homes in the area had a bottom level of an approximate 420 square foot garage, which is not living space. He stated there was no comparison between this and the applicant's two-story structure and was very disturbed by the analogy made by the City between split-level homes and the applicant's two- story home. The main argument was that the proposed structure was a good 10 feet higher than any house around it. Mr. Duschak stated that foliage removal cannot prevent, but only accent the incompatibility. Chairman Cartwright stated that when in the neighborhood he had observed two homes on Spring Creek Road that were two-story and they were on the west side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Duschak pointed out the two homes Chairman Cartwright was speaking of on the map and agreed they were on the west side of the street. Chairman Cartwright reminded Mr. Duschak that City staff is bound by the Development Code which does not differentiate between split-level and two-story houses. Mr. Duschak stated that viewed from Spring Creek Road the west side of Whitestone Road forms a ridge. He felt the City's definition of ridge yields the same conclusion, an elongated crest. He pointed out on a display an area that he felt was an elongated crest that was considered Whitestone Ridge. Mr. Duschak also said he had difficulty with the neighborhood consultation process. He felt it was the neighbors only direct input into the process. He did not understand how the Director could approve something that 11 out of 14 neighbors opposed. He felt the neighborhood consultation process was flawed. Even though the city states that the process is for consultation and not for approval, once the neighbors sign the form he felt it was too late as the signature has contributed to the applicant one of the nine required findings. Chairman Cartwright stated that the early neighborhood consultation process was only to ensure the applicant made a legitimate effort to notify the neighbors that they were about to do something that might or might not change the neighborhood. If the neighbors had not signed the form, the applicant need only prove by proof of certified mail or other means that an attempt was made to notify the neighbors, and this would be sufficient in terms of noticing under early neighborhood consultation. Mr. Landisman summarized by stating the proposal was not compatible with the neighborhood in terms of square footage, apparent mass and ridgeline height He reminded the Commission that all of the two-story/split level residences on Whitestone Road are on the east side of the road and this is on the west side of the road. They believed this residence was on a ridge and therefore made it visible to many other residences. Most importantly, he felt that the privacy issue must be taken into account. He respectfully requested the Planning Commission uphold the appeal and deny the project Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Landisman what he would like to see done at this property that would be satisfactory to him. Mr. Landisman answered that in terms of privacy he would like to see the second -story pushed back so that he does not see it at all. If this were to happen he would not have to worry about the Cellys being able to see them on their property and the structure would not impact his hobby of astronomy. He was very fearful that this residence would set precedence in the neighborhood with its height and square footage. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 12 Commissioner Clark asked if somehow the second floor could be pushed back would that alleviate the privacy issue Mr. Landisman stated that the Cellys were proposing to add quite a bit of new square footage. He felt it would be possible to add a larger amount of square footage if the project were revised to a single story addition. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:40 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 9 50 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT.) Olympia Greer (architect) 276 Palos Verdes Drive West Palos Verdes Estates, began by explaining that the Cellys were looking for an addition of a modest size and on a limited budget The approach was to add approximately 1,000 square feet to satisfy the growing family and grandparents that live with them. A soils report will be prepared for the project. As a result of concerns from neighbors and staff, the height of the structure was reduced from 24'3" to 23'9" and the footprint was modified. In terms of the concern of privacy, the overall rear setback was reduced by 10' Out of that the south bedroom was setback 6' and the master bedroom setback 10' from the rear structure's facade At the same time, the balcony was eliminated completely. By reducing the height of the project the mass of the project was reduced Also, the roofing material changed from clay tile to composition shake. She felt the height of the addition was much less visible from the rear due to the fact that the wall of the second story has been pushed back 10'. The apparent height of the structure is lower due to the fact that the structure is broken up into smaller segments and has the appearance of a low -profile ranch style house. She felt the new design breaks the massing of the front into segments by retaining the overhang across the entry and preventing the appearance of the tower effect A roof overhang over the entry and the library bay window breaks the visual line between the floors. Ms. Greer explained the roof is primarily a hip roof with a few gable elements which further help to maintain the neighborhood ranch settings. The side elevations have been altered since the original proposal to include segments, which break the mass and the roofline, resulting in a lighter visual affect. She summarized that the second -story had been pushed in from all sides except the north side. The north side had been reduced considerably in terms of the overall length She explained that the rear elevation had also been broken into segments. Further, there is no balcony and the outdoor space under the roof overhang is part of the structure without imposing on adjacent privacy. She stated that careful attention was given to the issue of privacy. She explained that the Landisman residence was currently not visible from the Celly residence if one stands at the rear yard. If one stands at the very edge of the existing rail one portion of the yard and glass patio doors is visible. Stepping back six feet from the edge the patio and doors are no longer visible. No indoor views are visible from the Celly residence It was established, therefore, that six feet was a minimum distance one must be back from the edge of the existing structure at the second level in order not Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 13 to see the Landisman's yard. The second story was set back 10' which resulted in a reduction of the master bedroom and a reconfiguration of the floor plan. The southern bedroom was set back by 6', the balcony was eliminated, and the window size was reduced The south side windows were eliminated from bedrooms 3 and 4 She explained that the main goal was to be able to enjoy the distant views inherent in the value and location of this property. She felt this was being accomplished with care and respect of privacy infringement She also felt the night sky affect has been maintained because the glass area on the second story has been reduced from 16 feet to 9 feet. This also acknowledges and preserves the neighbors privacy She added that ambient light level from the atmospheric scatter of the city lights is greater than any localized affects from nearby lights except on cloudy days She concluded by saying that this solution has satisfied all zoning requirements, staff parameters, and neighbors concerns. She commented that a ground floor addition of a similar size and magnitude would not be possible as it would cover the entire lot from side yard to side yard. Commissioner Albeno asked if bedroom no 4 could be setback further to be in line with the master bedroom Ms. Greer stated that it could not be done without going over the garage by four feet, which is something they were trying to avoid Commissioner Paris asked if there were a way to reduce the entryway, thereby further reducing the setback at the rear of the house Ms. Greer answered that the current 10 -foot setback ensures total privacy and to go further than 10 feet may not be essential, but possible. Kirti Celly (applicant) 27041 Whitestone Road, began by stating the plan to develop the property stemmed from their basic family needs for additional space. She explained that they have two young children plus her mother and grandmother living with them. She also explained that she and her husband do quite a bit of work from their home. She stated an investment of this magnitude required them to think very carefully about the risk involved because if anyone was risking property values it was the first person on the street to add substantially to their home. Mrs. Celly felt that their proposal was consistent with the City's Development Code and compatible with second story developments that the City has already permitted in the neighborhood. She cited five two-story homes in the immediate tract, two on Spring Creek Road, one on Clint Place, and two on Finecrest Drive All of these, excluding the garage and trellises, are between 2,200 and 3,600 square feet and all of the lot sizes are between 7,000 and 9,000 square feet. She explained that there were several reasons they chose to add a second -story addition rather than a single story addition. The first reason was that they currently have a rather small yard and desired to retain as much of the yard as possible. Secondly, given the risky nature of the investment, she felt strongly that putting on a second story would reduce some of the risk since they could capitalize on their views The third reason was that they have her mother and grandmother living with them and it would be nice for them to have a small amount of privacy. Mrs Celly appreciated the Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 14 amount of effort the appellants had put into their presentation and addressed the Issue of privacy She demonstrated that someone standing at the top of a hill would not see someone at the bottom of a hill, as they were not in their line of vision. She felt that was the situation at her home with the neighbors below on Spring Creek Drive Sanjay Celly (applicant) 27041 Whitestone Road, expressed confusion over his neighbor, Mr. Mori, who has seen the silhouette for eleven months and discussed the plan with him and had no objection that he knew of until tonight. He discussed other neighbors who had previously had no objection to the project until this meeting He felt that the city staff had reviewed his project and found it to meet all of the Development Code requirements and therefore approved the project. He did not feel his neighbors wanted to see any type of second story addition on his house. Regarding privacy, he stated he could already see Mr. Landlsman's and Mrs. Lakharn's houses from his property line He stated it was the nature of the area that those building on a hill can look down and see the property at the bottom of the hill. There Is nothing that will change that He did not feel that being an amateur astronomer should deny his right to build on and enjoy his land, especially since he was not violating the City's codes He also felt that some neighbors were playing the role of an art jury In determining how, and what style their house should be. Mr. Celly stated that he has compromised In many ways with their neighbors. He briefly discussed the soils report and stated that if the City requires a soils report they will gladly furnish one He felt that the proposed square footage was creating an average size house and not one that was well beyond what was in the neighborhood Regarding the early neighborhood consultation process, Mr. Celly commented that during this process they met some wonderful neighbors that they had not previously known Further, he followed the intent of the early neighborhood consultation process very carefully. He concluded by asking the Planning Commission to be fair in their decision. At this point Vice Chairman Lyon stated that he had just arrived at the meeting. He explained that if the Commission takes action on this project tonight he would not participate in the deliberation or vote However, If the Item were to be continued he would review the minutes, listen to the tapes, and participate at the subsequent hearing. Charles Moore 27007 Whitestone Road, commended the Planning Commission on their patience and thoroughness He stated that if he were at all worried about the depreciation of his property value because of this addition he would be making a lot of noise and writing a lot of letters very early In this process. He stated he was in favor of this project because he felt It would Improve the neighborhood values. He felt the Celly's were providing a space for their family under the City codes. John McDermott 27031 Spring Creek Road, had not met the Cellys until the early neighborhood consultation process. He expressed concern over what was happening in the neighborhood and the division the project was causing He stated that he asked the Cellys to see plans of their addition, which they readily provided He was very concerned over the privacy issues, which were alleviated after reviewing the plans He was concerned also that neighbors had not done what he had done, which was to Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 15 contact the Cellys and review the plans He acknowledged that neighborhoods are changing and will continue to do so. Mr McDermott concluded by asking the Planning Commission to give this project serious consideration and realize that the city codes have been met and the project should be approved. Eric Johnson 26958 Spring Creek Road, stated that he had studied the silhouette erected at the property and in his opinion it did not look like it would impact anyone's view. He felt the Cellys proceeded in a responsible manner and had offered on more than three occasions to show him the plans He felt the Cellys had attempted to address a number of the concerns raised by the neighbors. Mr. Johnson stated that it might be simplistic to assume that planting trees on a slope would allow the neighbors more privacy, but it had worked for him. He explained that he had planted trees behind his house with the same type of slope looking up at Whitestone Road. He stated that his neighbors could not look into his yard and he could not see into theirs. His appeal was for the neighbors to voice their concerns as they have done, but to look for ways to come to some type of agreement He felt the Cellys were very approachable and a little cooperation, a little communication, and a little consideration would go a long way. Kamla Dutt 27041 Whitestone Road, stated that she was the grandmother of Mrs Celly and stated that the family needed more space. She would appreciate it if the Commission would approve the project so they have a larger home to live in. Mrs. Celly requested that if the Commission were to continue this item that they consider their original proposal for approval. She stated that this revised proposal was costing them substantially more to build than the original plan She further stated that the applicants would be willing to share the one time installation cost of a hedge or fence to provide privacy to Dr. Landisman's and Mrs. Lakhani's properties Mr. Celly clarified that the request was not to abandon the revised proposal altogether but, if the item is continued, to also consider the original proposal. Mr Landisman stated that in spite of the careful analysis presented by the architect, he felt very strongly that the bedroom window closest to his property will infringe upon his privacy He added that the nighttime view of the sky from his backyard to the south and the west rivals that from the desert and this addition will impact that view. He regretted not speaking to the applicants sooner and stated he would like to see something worked out, but was afraid of the change that would begin to occur in the neighborhood. Mr. Duschak reiterated that the location of the proposed project was in such a place as to be visible from many properties. He stated he would work hard to support the Cellys if they were willing to redesign the project to a single story residence that was compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Aiberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 16 Commissioner Alberio felt the solution to the privacy issue was to consider the Celly's proposal to help with the cost to install a hedge or fence halfway down the slope He thought that setting the addition further back onto the property was too expensive. With some type of vegetation planted on the slope to ease the privacy issue Commissioner Albeno felt the project should be approved. Commissioner Slayden stated he was very Impressed with the amount of time and effort the appellants had put into their presentation It was obvious to him that this issue was very important to them. He also understood the homeowners desire to improve their home. He felt that the land in Rancho Palos Verdes has gone up in value tremendously and this is not the same community that most people originally bought into. There is a certain growth element that has to be looked at and part of that growth is additions and remodels to homes. Two story homes are now being built in areas where there previously were none. He stated that the houses on Whitestone have a beautiful view and the houses on Spring Creek have limited views with a large slope behind them with houses at the top of the slope. He stated that this should be a major consideration for people buying homes on Spring Creek Drive. Because of this the appellants concern about privacy bothered him tremendously He felt that people on Whitestone Drive would not be standing at the edge of their property looking down at the homes on Spring Creek, they would be looking out at their views He agreed with Commissioner Alberio that some type of foliage might help on the slope. Commissioner Paris began by stating he had a problem with the fact that the house stands up so high from the lower street He thought that incompatibility was an issue as large homes are not necessarily the way of the future. People moved here because of the lifestyle and want to keep that lifestyle. He complimented the applicants on their revised plan, but felt further improvements could be made by adjusting the hallways, entryway, bathrooms, reducing some of the non-essential space, and pulling the entire wall slightly back. He felt that if the home were not located near the peak of this street it might not be such an issue. Commissioner Clark agreed with one of the speakers who said there could be a little more cooperation, communication, and consideration dealing with this project. He stated that some of the best solutions to problems have come when neighbors look at how they can move collectively together as a neighborhood versus maintaining their opposing positions He stated that it was clear to him that the applicant had made significant revisions to the proposed project On the other hand it was clear that many neighbors still had concerns. He felt the public testimony showed that there was room for reflection on both sides. Further, there were two commissioners absent from this meeting and he had been out of town and had only a chance to drive by the property and review the silhouette He had not had a chance to visit some of the neighbors' properties He noted that the applicants have shown a willingness to continue to work with the neighbors in their privacy concerns. He felt that tonight's meeting had gone a long way in terms of getting information out and positions articulated. However, he felt there was additional time needed and would recommend a continuance Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 17 Chairman Cartwright disagreed with the suggestion of a continuance. He felt there was ample information presented and it was down to a matter of the Commission making a decision Continuing the item was no assurance that more than five Commissioners would be present at that future meeting and could very well be a new Commission since the City Council was in the process of Commission interviews He recognized the privacy issue but felt the issue could be solved with the use of foliage. In reviewing neighborhood compatibility Mr. Cartwright commended the applicants for their efforts to respond to the concerns of the staff and the neighbors He drove around the neighborhood many times and felt it was a very mixed neighborhood with second story residences and split-level residences. He thought there would be even more in the future. He felt the addition was reasonable, the privacy issues could be solved, and the geology would be addressed in the plan check process. Regarding property values, it was his belief that this type of addition in the neighborhood would enhance property values rather than decrease them Commissioner Alberio moved to deny the appeal thereby upholding the Director's decision with one revision to require the applicant to place a hedge on the slope for privacy, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Director/Secretary Rojas asked for clarification on one condition regarding the windows on the north side of the residence A comment had been made regarding the way the condition was written which said that the 4' by 6' window on the north side was not permitted with this approval He asked if the Commission would like to clarify the condition to say that no windows are allowed on the north side of the residence The Commission agreed that the clarification should be made Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing Mr. Landisman asked for clarification regarding the hedge. He stated that Mrs Lakhani had left the meeting but he wanted the Commission to understand that she could not afford to maintain a hedge He suggested a fence be put in rather than a hedge. Commissioner Alberto suggested the condition state that the applicant will pay for a portion of the initial installation of a fence or hedge only if the appellants wants it. It would then be up to the people on downslope properties to maintain the hedge. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested that if maintenance were a problem then the hedge could be planted at the top of the slope on the applicant's property. Olympia Greer suggested that if there were maintenance issues for specific homeowners it would be more cost effective to install a more permanent structure such as a wood fence Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 18 Mr. Celly stated that foliage on the slope was beneficial not only for privacy but to add stability to the slope. He offered, in the case of Mrs Lakhani, to trim the hedge once every year or two depending on the need. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Slayden suggested the type of hedge be subject to the Director's approval to ensure that a low maintenance hedge that was acceptable to all parties was planted. Chairman Cartwright summarized that a hedge was to be planted, subject to the Director's approval, for privacy purposes on the Landisman and Lakhani properties. The appellants and the applicant would share the cost of installation of the hedge. The hedge would only be planted if it either the Landismans or the Lakhanis wanted one. Director Rojas cautioned the Commission that foliage planted for privacy was a complex issue in terms of maintenance. He did not want to create an issue that was common with view restoration He recommended the hedges be placed at the top of the slope on the applicant's property Commissioner Alberio restated his motion that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-08 thereby denying the applicant's appeal and upholding the Director's decision for approval of Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No. 8637 subject to the condition that a hedge be planted on the slope of 27046 Spring Creek Road and 27040 Spring Creek Road, to satisfy the privacy issues. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing Mr. Celly was concerned with the cost issues of this proposal and offered to give $1,000 to Mrs. Lakhani and $500 to Mr Landisman which would go towards building a fence or the installation of a hedge, whichever they chose as long as it met with the Director's approval Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Alberio amended his motion to include that the applicant will contribute to Mrs. Lakhani $1,000 and Mr. Landisman $500 for the purpose of planting foliage to provide additional privacy protection if they chose to plant this foliage, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Commissioner Clark suggested that the wording be such that Mr. Landisman and/or Mrs. Lakhani submit bills for the planting of the foliage for privacy purposes to the applicant which he will then reimburse up to $500 to Mr. Landisman and up to $1,000 to Mrs. Lakhani. This must happen within one year of the final certificate of occupancy of the addition Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 19 Commissioner Alberio agreed with Commissioner Clark's suggestion and amended his motion to include that wording, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The motion was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Paris dissenting. 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 204 -Revision 'A; Rich Development Company (applicant) 29701 Western Avenue Chairman Cartwright moved to receive and file the report for Conditional Use Permit No. 204 — Revision 'A', seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection it was so ordered. 6. Variance No. 469, Gradinq Permit NO. 2127, and Site Plan Review No. 8795: Allan Kwong (applicant), 64 Laurel Drive Chairman Cartwright moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection it was so ordered. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed the Abalone Cove Landslide and what was happening to it during the rain and the activity at the Filliorum property. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner alberio moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. to March 14, 2000 \\MASTADON\Planning\PC\Minutes\2000\20000222 doc Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 20