Loading...
PC MINS 20000808• r ---j CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 2000 Rulmug• • i Approved August 22, 2000 Chairman Lyon called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Associate Planner Louie led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Paulson, Vannorsdall, and Chairman Lyon Absent Commissioner Mueller and Vice Chairman Clark were excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planners Mihranian and Louie, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objections to the Agenda, Chairman Lyon approved the Agenda as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council discussed the proposed senior affordable housing project tentatively scheduled for public hearings at a planning commission meeting in November Staff distributed one item each of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 8. Director Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that an item of late correspondence in regard to Agenda Item No. 4 was received after the Monday noon deadline which the Commission declined to accept. Director/Secretary Rojas reminded the Commission that a Joint Meeting with the Traffic Committee to scope out issues to be addressed in the pending environmental impact report for the Long Point Resort project will be held on August 22, 2000. Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that Associate Planner Lisa Louie was leaving the city and would be joining the City of South Pasadena. Commissioner Cartwright reported on his attendance at the mayor's breakfast CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF JULY 25 2000 Commissioner Cartwright requested that on page 7, paragraph 10, line 1 be modified to read as ' —Commissioner Cartwright stated that the....' and on page 8, paragraph 3, line one be modified to read as Commissioner Cartwright moved to amend....'. Commissioner Long requested that on page 12, paragraph 6, lines 1 and 2 be modified to read as '....Commissioner Long pointed out that there is a Government Code that states that if permits are issued for this project or any other project. ..'. Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and approved, (5-0). 2 HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 896, GRADING PERMINT NO 2126, and VARIANCE NO 455 — RESOLUTION—Roko & Arlene Alaga (applicant), 29131 Highmore Avenue. (ES) Chairman Lyon asked the Commission if they had any comments on this item and there were none. Chairman Lyon had one comment and stated that on page 6 the date should be corrected to August 8, 2000 rather than July 25, 2000. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that this was correct and that the change would be made to reflect that date. With no objections from the Commission, P.C. Resolution No. 2000-23 was adopted, thereby approving Height Variation No. 896, Grading Permit No. 2126, and Variance No. 455, (5-0). Chairman Lyon noted the 15 -day appeal period. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 182 -REVISION 'C' and SIGN PERMIT NO. 720 -REVISION 'B'— RESOLUTION_ Bill Meyers (applicant), 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard. (LL) Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 2 Chairman Lyon reminded the public that this item was not a public hearing item and was only for approval of a resolution documenting the Commission decisions at the last meeting. Director/Secretary Rojas added that discussion of this item was limited to ensuring that the resolution reflects the Commission decision at the last meeting and informed the Commission that there were speakers for this item and that testimony can be taken to address solely the language and clarification issues of the language. Commissioner Long requested to reflect on the record that he dissented on section 4 of the resolution Director/Secretary Rojas stated that although it would not appear in the resolution Commissioner Long's points were noted in the minutes, which are part of the record. Chairman Lyon noted on page 2 of the resolution, section 1, second line that Condition Number 36 of P C Resolution Number 95-41 should read as '—prohibit the rear parking lot from being chained off , the second to the last line in section four should read as `....since they are necessary...', page 9 at the top, second line should read as'. if it ceases to occur for more than 90 consecutive days.. ' Mr. Bill Myers had only one minor concern in the conditions of approval under section 1.c and stated that the plans he submitted have the Mobil Mart sign in the middle of the window and not over the entrance door. Mr. Myers felt that it should not be in that location The Commission agreed. Chairman Lyon moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-24, as amended, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 182 -Revision 'C' and Sign Permit No. 720 -Revision `B', (5-0), with no objections from the Commission it was so ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 892 and GRADING PERMIT NO 2130 John Koscy, (applicant), 3151 Deluna Drive (LL) Commissioner Long informed the Commission that he was absent at the original public hearing on May 23, 2000 and recused himself from Commission discussion on this item. Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report and stated that on May 23, 2000 the Commission considered this item and continued the meeting to July 11, 2000 since concerns regarding the site geology, driveway location, and the basement's foundation design were identified. Furthermore the applicant requested that the Commission consider a new request to attach the garage to the basement in order to allow for the installation of an elevator for disabled persons. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 3 Associate Planner Louie stated that on June 19, 2000 staff met with the applicant to review and discuss the modified plans which consisted of a modified geology report since the applicant requested to install 11 new caissons At the July 11, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting, in order to allow enough time to receive input from the City's Geologist and address other concerns which the Commission had, the Public Hearing for this item was continued to August 8, 2000. Based on staffs analysis, it was determined that the nine findings were made to warrant approval of the Height Variation Permit and the 10 findings were made to warrant approval of the Grading Permit. Associate Planner Louie stated that the proposed residence would not create a significant view impairment for the surrounding properties and that the design was compatible with the immediate neighborhood Commissioner Cartwright asked if there were any other changes other than the requested installation of 11 caissons and Associate Planner replied that there were no other changes. Chairman Lyon opened the Public Hearing. Mr. John Koscy, 4530 W 170th Street, stated that he was under the impression that there would be 2 driveways until staff contacted him about the concerns raised by the Department of Public Works relating to traffic hazards. Mr. Koscy was concerned with Condition No. 19 in the Conditions of Approval and stated that his soils engineer did not want his hands tied with only 11 caissons should he need more after drilling has been done. Chairman Lyon stated that if the applicant decided to request additional caissons the proposed development should not have to stop and asked Staff what was wrong with letting the applicant put as many caissons as they think is necessary on the subject site. Director/Secretary Rojas replied that the zoning code requires approval for caissons collectively and that is why we ask the applicant how many caissons would be installed. Mr. Rojas concurred with the Chairman Lyon's comments and stated that the Commission may desire to reconstruct this condition indicating that caissons were permitted with this approval to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division. Mr. Andrew Haiduczek, 3141 Deluna Avenue, was concerned about the size of the proposed structure and stated that the amount of grading was excessive. Mr Hajduczek felt that the applicant's proposed driveway plans would create dangerous conditions and may cause collisions. Mr Hajduczek requested that the Commission consider this item thoroughly before making a decision. Mr David York, (applicant's architect) 3151 Deluna Avenue, stated that with regard to the safety issue he was looking at approximately 20% grading coming down the Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 4 driveway Mr. York stated that whether a 2,000 square foot house is constructed on the lot or a 5,500 square foot house it would still require 5,100 cubic yards of grading because of where the garage sits. He felt that the proposal is not over -grading the subject property. Chairman Lyon asked Mr. York if it was his opinion that the driveway shall go straight down into the street. Mr. York replied that this was correct. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing and seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Chairman Lyon asked for Commission comments and discussion. Commissioner Paulson felt that the 2 separate driveway alternative was most desirable from a safety standpoint Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed that the driveway location would require additional grading and concurred with the comments of Commissioner Paulson. Commissioner Cartwright felt that joining driveways would be hazardous and stated that the visibility should be kept open. He was satisfied with the geology report and believed that adding caissons would strengthen the foundation. He felt that the garage modifications were reasonable and that the grading was not excessive. Chairman Lyon requested that Condition Number 19 be modified to read as `...Caissons are permitted .' and agreed with everything previously. Chairman Lyon believed that it was far safer, more convenient, and less obstructive in terms of encroaching on the neighbors property to bring the driveway straight down and should be as far as possible away from Crest Road Chairman Lyon also requested a change in Exhibit 'A' and to delete Condition Number 16 Director/Secretary Rojas suggested that a condition be placed to clarify that the driveways do not have to connect which would clearly give the applicant the ability to do what is requested on the proposed plans. Chairman Lyon moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-25, thereby approving Height Variation No. 892 and Grading Permit No. 2130 with modifications to Condition Numbers 16 and 19 in Exhibit `A'. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paulson and passed (4-0-1) by a roll call vote with Commissioner Long abstaining. Chairman Lyon noted the 15 -day appeal period 5 HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 905, GRADING PERMIT NO 2195, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO 567, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO 8839, COASTAL PERMIT Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 5 NO. 164 and ZONE CHANGE PERMIT NO 29 • Mr. & Mrs. Richard Carl (applicant), 42 Seacove Drive (AM) Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report and explained the background and the various applications for the proposed project: Associate Mihranian stated that he identified three main concerns with the findings for the Height Variation Permit. These concerns must be positively made for a recommendation of the proposed project: 1. How the design of the proposed structure minimized view impairment Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the applicant designed the proposed structure so that the second story is located on one side of the building footprint. Furthermore, the applicant redesigned the proposed project by eliminating a portion of the ceiling volume (18% of the structure's height over the lower level) near the eastern property line. In addition, the applicant lowered the height of the original proposed structure from 26' to 24'6" to minimize view impairments. 2. How the proposed structure insignificantly impairs views from the surrounding properties: Associate Planner Mihranian stated that a total of 11 letters were received from neighbors surrounding neighbors expressing concern with the proposed project as it pertains to view impairments. He conducted site visits to identify these issues, and determined that the proposed development does not create a significant view impairment as indicated in the Staff Report The site visits conducted included the neighbor across the street at 31 Packet and several units at the Palos Verde Bay Club. 3. Privacy issues addressed relating to the proposed structure In addition to views, the letters submitted by the neighbors expressed concerns relating to an infringement privacy caused by the proposed second story addition. Staff stated the original proposal had four windows along the Westside of the fagade and advised the applicant to change three of the windows into clerestory windows that were at least 5' above the finished floor of the second level As for the window in the masterbathroom, Staff advised the applicant to use an opaque glass and to screen the window As such, these recommendation incorporated in the revised plans adequately address privacy concerns. In regard to the Gradin Pg ermif, Associate Planner Mihranian explained that the applicant requested a total of 250 cubic yards of grading of which 210 cubic yards consists of cut and 40 cubic yards consists of fill. Staff believed that the proposed grading was minor and had no impact on the existing neighborhood, since most of the grading was under the building footprint and further prepared the site for the proposed improvements. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 6 The applicant's request for a Minor Exception Permit, is to allow the construction of a new six-foot high combination fence/wall along the front property line Based on staff's analysis, the request complies with the City's development guidelines and that the proposed combination wall/fence will not cause adversely Impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic and is compatible with other 'bluff top' lots and should be permitted. The Site Plan Review Permit is for the demolition of the existing residence and verification that the proposed project complies with residential development guidelines as it relates to the setbacks, lot coverage, and parking Staff believes that the proposed project complied with the RS -2 residential standards to warrant a positive recommendation. The Coastal Permit is required since the proposed project will be developed in the City's designated Coastal Zone. It is to assure that the Improvements comply with the City's Coastal Specific Plan and since the proposed development is located in an appealable area, the final decision is determined by the City Council and is appealable to the California Coastal Commission Mr Mihranian noted that the subject property was considered as a 'bluff top' lot and stated that the finding could be warranted since the subject property does not currently provide public access to the sea and does not impair public views Therefore, Staff has determined that it conformed with the policies of the Coastal Act. The Zone Change Permit, a request by the applicant to amend the City's Zoning Map by adjusting the location of the Coastal Setback Line closer to the bluff (and the Coastal Structure Setback Line 25 feet landward). Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the City's geologist reviewed the applicants' geology reports and concurred that the adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line would not jeopardize human activity and further emphasized that appropriate foundations would be required within the restricted use area. Based on geologic conditions, staff believed that the geology reports warrant the zone change. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that in addition to the Coastal Setback line relating to geology staff was able to identify Staff memorandum from previous years that indicate that the coastal setback line addresses secondary impacts such as a view corridor and aesthetics. In looking at the proposed project and the views from the condominium complex, staff believed if further encroachment towards the bluff is allowed that it would result in a significant view impairment to the condominium residents. Staff proposes a condition on the project that would not allow any further development towards the bluff in order to address this concern. In conclusion to Associate Planner Mihranian's presentation, he stated that the Commission would review the zone change as well as the associated applications and forward a recommendation to City Council. Once the City Council reviews the project and a decision is made, that decision may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Mihranian noted that because of the Permit Streamlining Act from the time of which the proposed project is deemed complete (60 days) the applicant will be required to apply for an extension. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Cartwright asked if the applicant intends to rebuild the proposed project on the same foundation and Associate Planner Mihranian replied that he did not believe so, which is why he is demolishing the existing house, so that a new foundation can be built. Mr. Mihranian also explained that if the entire structure is demolished, the new structure must be brought into compliance with the current standard. Commissioner Cartwright asked if there were any height restrictions placed on the homes on the seaward side of Seacove Drive when the existing home was built and Mr. Mihranian replied not according to documentation staff has obtained Commissioner Cartwright asked if Coastal Commission approval was required for the construction of the pool and Associate Mihranian replied that it did. Commissioner Cartwright inquired if the intention of the reduction for the proposed home on the left side was to improve the view of the neighborhood. Associate Planner Mihranian replied that it would establish a viewing frame laterally over the subject property from the property at 31 Packet Road and it would also address the mass and bulk concerns. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the City had any knowledge on the subject property having erosions from prior years. Associate Planner Mihranian replied that this issue was addressed in the geotechnical review which establishes a restricted use area to prevent impacts to the bluff Director/Secretary Rojas indicated that Staff has not studied this issue, but suggested that Staff could compare aerial photographs and determine whether there was significant erosion in the past. Commissioner Vannorsdall inquired if there was erosion activity due to drainage at the right side of the proposed project and Associate Planner Mihranian replied that there was an actual drainage course running down in that area and that the storm drains off Seacove Drive address that concern now Mr. Mihranian explained that there was a storm drain at the end of the street between Seacove Drive where the condominium complex is located and another located four properties up from the subject property. Commissioner Long inquired about the factors that were considered by Staff in assessing potential view impairments and whether the Planning Guidelines were similar to the View Restoration Commission guidelines. Director/Secretary Rojas replied that the View Restoration Guidelines have a discussion of different examples of what is significant and insignificant (landmarks, percentage, or in the view frame). Whereas the Planning Commission Guidelines do not have that discussion, however the practice that staff utilizes is the same. Associate Planner Mihranian added that he established the viewing frame and the portion that was being proposed over the permitted height limit he looked at what the impacts would be in terms of any significant landmarks such as, Abalone Cove, whitewater views, beach, cove, and the ocean Commissioner Long inquired on staffs assessment of the proposed project regarding neighborhood compatibility since the proposed development is 2,000 square feet larger than the next largest home on that street. Mr. Mihranian replied that in determining the neighborhood Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 8 compatibility analysis he identified that there were two distinct characteristics in that neighborhood. He explained that in analyzing the square footage he stated that of the 9,244 square feet, 6,870 square feet would be on the first floor, the cellar would be 430 square feet, and the second floor would 1,943 square feet. In comparing the first floor with the existing house (5,287 square feet) there is a 997 square foot difference Mr Mihranian stated that the square footage of the proposed project was large, but predominantly located on the first floor. He stated that from the vantage point of the street and the neighboring properties, one could not see the impacts of the proposed structure size because of the unique location and topography of the 'bluff top' lot. Chairman Lyon asked if the City incurred no liability in the future event of a landslide or erosion of the cliff and Director/Secretary Rotas replied that this was correct. Recess/Comments from the Audience: At 8:57 p.m. there was a brief recess until 9 04 p.m. when the meeting reconvened Chairman Lyon asked if there any comments from the audience and staff replied that there were none Public Hearings (continued) Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Chairman Lyon asked how many speaker request there were and Staff replied a total of eleven speakers requested to give testimony. Jennifer Gockel, 30833 Rue Valois, forfeited her time to the applicant, Richard Carl Lisa Gockel Carl, (applicant's spouse), 30833 Rue Valois/42 Seacove, stated that she and her husband were very fortunate to purchase the subject property. to construct their dream/retirement home Mrs Carl said that she and her husband purchased the property 'as is' and knew that it required extensive reconstruction. She consulted with their immediate neighbors, sent out 117 letters within the radius of their proposed home, had an open house where they displayed a model of the proposal and only 17 people replied and met with her and her husband. Mrs. Carl also stated that she and her husband had an opportunity to meet with the original owners of the subject property. She contacted and thanked those who did and did not attend the open house to discuss the proposed project and left them her telephone number if they had any further questions regarding the proposed development. Mrs. Carl stated that many homeowner's were very open and gracious about their proposal. Mrs Carl stated that they would like to maintain the integrity of their proposed home design and believes that they considered neighborhood views in the design She then thanked those who were in support. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 9 Mr Richard Carl, 30833 Rue Valois/42 Seacove, reiterated most of the comments when Mr Mihranian made the Staff presentation. Mr. Carl made a poster board presentation of the existing home with overlays, pointed out the property at 31 Packet Road, and the condominium complex of which some concerned residents have raised view issues. Mr. Carl stated that in trying to improve the view impairments he proposed to remove all foliage and obtained written authorization from the property owners at 40 Seacove to remove additional foliage which would create an increased viewing corridor. Mr. Carl pointed out the 180 degree panoramic view of the area which the residents at the condominium complex possess and stated that second story level would exceed the permitted height by 4'-9" and is relatively small compared to the 'by -right' component. Mr. Carl also pointed the redesign and reduction of the proposed project over a period of time. As part of the zoning process he stated that he pushed the proposed project as far back as he could with the second story section going from north to south. Mr. Carl displayed a picture of the finished development with views coming from the condominium complex. He stated that one of the issues of the proposed project was the mass. Mr. Carl displayed drawings of a home at 16 Seacove and stated that it was 7,200 square feet had an U shape structure and was located on a sloping lot. He displayed a drawing of the home on 28 Seacove which was a two-story home similar to his proposed project and pointed out that when an overlay is placed on top of it (silhouette) it is almost identical to his proposed project. Mr. Carl placed this overlay over other homes in the same area such as 24 and 26 Seacove and stated that the closer the homes were to the street the larger they appeared. Mr. Carl stated that the existing home on 42 Seacove needed extensive reconstruction which is what he has proposed. Mr. Michael Kemp, 42 Seacove, stated that there were so many constraints in trying to renovate the existing home since several add-ons were made in prior years Mr Kemp stated that he considered many ideas in how to design the proposed project. He wanted to do a minimum amount of grading so he decided to use the existing pad which requires zone change because the existing structure is situated within the Coastal Setback Zone Line. Mr Kemp considered the idea of constructing a one-story home on the existing pad, but in doing so the proposed structure would have to be extended farther north and would require additional grading. Mr. Kemp considered the idea of constructing a two-story home oriented from east to west but felt that it would dramatically impair views for the adjacent neighbors. He decided to propose the designed structure with the first floor consisting of lower level at 5,520 square feet and 1,943 square feet at the second level and oriented from north to south in order to minimize any massiveness. In regards to the coastal setback line, Mr. Kemp requested to relocate by nine feet in order to accommodate building on the existing pad. Commissioner Paulson asked Mr. Kemp why he did not want to get into the grading issue if he were to design a one-story configuration closer to the street. Mr. Kemp replied that he preferred not to do excessive grading since the subject site was a bluff top lot and felt that it would create more bulk to the proposed structure. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 10 Mr. William Swenson 31 Packet Road, was in opposition of the proposed development and stated that it would significantly impair 90% of their only ocean view He stated that the homes located on the bluff side were all single story homes including the two home adjacent felt that it was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Swenson was concerned that this proposed project would open the door to future two- story homes on the bluff. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Swenson how he felt when the applicant proposed to create a corridor view by removing foliage on his property and the adjacent property. Mr. Swenson replied that it was a benefit to him and perhaps a step in the right direction, but felt that an 18% reduction in the redesign of the proposed home was not adequate. Mr. Robert Lusian 32735 Seagate Drive, #G, represented the Palos Verdes Bay Club Condominium Complex and stated that the proposed development would create view impairments for the residents at the condominium complex. He stated that property values would decrease and that residents were also concerned with the geologic stability of the subject site Commissioner Paulson asked Mr. Lusian what he would like to see the applicant do. Mr. Lusian replied that he believes the applicant should propose a one-story home rather than a two-story home to resolve the view impairment issue. Ms Annis Sims, 32735 Seagate Drive, #206 has resided at the condominium complex for the 33 years and stated that the proposed development would create obstruction of her panoramic view of the coastline and the Pacific Ocean She also stated that it would decrease her property value and requested that the Commission deny the applicant's request. Mr. Mark Simon, 32759 Seagate Drive, #203, stated that he owns two units in the same building, one on the first floor and the other on the second floor. Mr. Simon also stated that the proposed project would impair his view of the hills and was concerned with other issues such as, privacy, property value impacts and geological stability of the subject site. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Simon what would he like to see the applicant have done to resolve some of these issues. Mr. Simon replied that he would like to see the applicant propose a single -story home. Mr. Robert Chalmers Building 2 #106, was in opposition of the proposed project and raised a concern regarding privacy He stated that the windows to the proposed second story would invade his privacy and requested that no windows be facing towards the direction of his and other residential properties Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 11 0 0 Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Chalmers what he would like for the applicant to do in order to resolve this issue. Mr Chalmers replied that he would like to have zero viewing windows which would allow light to come in with no viewing inside or outside. Commissioner Long asked the applicant's architect of what the disadvantages would be if the proposed project were designed as a one-story level. Mr. Kemp (architect) replied that this particular design could be done, but that it would not be aesthetically desired Commissioner Paulson asked Mr. Kemp would another disadvantage be that the applicant would give up a major view from the master bedroom located on the second floor Commissioner Long moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection the Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Lyon asked for Commission comments on this item. Commissioner Long stated that he had no particular concerns about the proposed project other than the view issue. He noted that staff advises that the applicant has an absolute right to build up to 16 feet under all circumstances. However, he felt there was significant view impairment. He stated that Finding Number 4 requires a determination that everything reasonably possible has been done to reduce view impairments, even if those view impairments are not "significant" Further, if the Commission concludes that because it can make Finding No. 5 (that there is no significant view impairment) and that Finding No. 4 is satisfied, he felt the requirement for Finding No 4 is rendered superfluous. Mr. Long felt that such an interpretation makes no sense. He stated that Finding No. 4 is a separate requirement designed to require that careful consideration be given to minimizing view impacts even below the 16 foot height requirement and was designed to comply to cases just like this one. Commissioner Cartwright stated that he was sympathetic towards the residents who will have view impairments due to the proposed project, but the impairment results from the 'by right' height limit, as indicated with the silouhefte. He feels that the applicant has made an effort to design the proposed structure in a manner that would minimize view impairments He stated that the applicant has addressed the concerns of the residents by lowering the roof isolating the second story towards one side which reduces the mass and bulk, which addresses view concerns, the applicants addressed privacy issues by modifying the numbers and types of windows along the west facade. Commissioner Vannorsdall also concurred that the applicant made an effort in redesigning the proposed structure to minimize view impairments and felt that if the applicant proposed a second story on the first level it would be on a higher pad level of 5 feet, and would therefore not decrease the overall height of the structure Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 12 Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that his main concern was the geologic stability of the subject site and felt that it would be a danger should an erosion occur. Associate Planner Mihranian replied that the applicant has completed an ongoing geologic investigations for the past year with the City's Geotechnical Engineer, which was approved in May, 2000. The City's Geotechnical Engineer considered safety and human activity on the subject site and stated the coastal setback line was not a concern, but the restricted area was. The Public Hearing was re -opened to hear comments from the applicant regarding the geology issue. Mr. Richard Carl stated that there were two borings done at 45 feet on the subject and that the City's Geotechnical Engineer had reviewed the report. Chairman Lyon closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Vannorsdall was concerned that if the proposed swimming pool were to leak and reach towards the cliff would there be protection against that area collapsing. Director/Secretary Rojas replied that the proposed pool would be constructed with a leak prevention system. Associate Planner Mihranian noted that the applicant proposed to move the swimming pool closer towards the proposed structure rather than the bluff Commissioner Paulson was concerned with the size of the proposed structure and the view impairments. Commissioner Paulson felt that this item should be continued and suggested that the applicant raise a silhouette of a one-story profile and see how the view impairments effect the concerned residents Chairman Lyon reminded the Commission was only passing a recommendation to the City Council and that they will make the final decision. He stated that Commissioner Paulson's suggestion would impose a financial impact on the applicant and felt that it would not be beneficial in the long run. Chairman Lyon concurred with the comments of Commissioners Cartwright and Vannorsdall and felt that the applicant and architect adequately addressed the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Long asked Staff if the roof line of a one-story house would be just as high as what is being proposed Associate Planner Mihranian replied that this was correct because of the lot's topography and the 16/20' 'by right' height limit. Commissioner Long asked if the 'by right' ridgeline impairs views of the coastline from the relevant condominium complex. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 13 Associate Planner Mihranian replied that the 'by right' height limit would result in an impairment of the coastline from the condominium complex. Commissioner Long stated that he now believed that finding Number 5 could be made per staff's analysis, but still felt that Finding Number 4 could not be made. He suggested that Commissioner Paulson's idea of continuing the item to allow consideration of a one-story alternative to be evaluated should be adopted. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff's recommendation and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed (3-2) by a roll call vote with Commissioners Long and Paulson dissenting. Chairman Lyon informed the public that a recommendation will be passed to the City Council. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified to the public that this was not a final decision only a recommendation. Staff will tentatively schedule this item for hearing with the City Council on September 19, 2000 after that decision is final there will be an opportunity to appeal this to the Coastal Commission. 6. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 904 and SITE PLAN REVIEW NO 8829 Mr Dan Evens, (applicant), 28615 Mount Hood Drive. (LL) Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report and stated that the applicant requested approval of additions totaling 1,337 square feet to the existing residence which consists of a 39 square foot first story addition and a 1,298 square foot second story addition. She stated that the proposed height of the residence would be 22'11" as measured from the highest existing grade covered by the structure to the proposed ridgeline. Based on staff's analysis it was determined that the nine findings were made to warrant the approval of the Height Variation. Associate Planner Louie stated that the proposed second story addition would not create significant view impairment for the surrounding residences nor will it be of significant impact to the privacy of the adjacent properties, and that it was compatible to the immediate neighborhood Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Mr. Frank Politeo, (applicant's architect) 1300 S Beacon Street, San Pedro, stated that he agreed with the findings of Staff and felt there would be no view impairment for the surrounding residents Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 14 Kris Evens, (applicant's spouse) 28615 Mount Hood Court, stated the reason for requesting additional room in their home was for their children's health reasons She stated that she and her husband made an effort to make concessions with the neighbors by lowering the flags. Mr. Dennis Powers 28626 Mount Rushmore, opposed the proposed project and stated that it would create view impairment from his property and that allowing the applicant to proceed with the project would open doors to others who would also want a second - story addition Dan Evens, (applicant), 28615 Mount Hood Court, informed the Commission that the poles are approximately 1 foot higher than the flags. Chairman Lyon closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Lyon asked for Commission discussion and comments Commissioner Paulson stated that he visited the site and felt that there were no significant view impairments for the residents He supported Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Vannorsdall concurred with Commissioner Paulson's comments and supported Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Long had no concerns and agreed with his fellow commissioners and also supported staff's recommendation. Commissioner Cartwright stated that the proposed project was compatible with the neighborhood, did not see any privacy issues nor saw any significant view impairments. He too agreed with Staff's recommendation. Chairman Lyon concurred with Commissioner Cartwright's comments and also supported Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Long moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-26, thereby approving Height Variation No. 904 and Site Plan Review No. 8829. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed (5-0) by a roll call vote. Chairman Lyon noted the 15 -day appeal period. 7. 6 -MONTH REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 208: Mr. Shiraz Giovani, (applicant), 27774 Hawthorne Boulevard. (LL) Chairman Lyon moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report, with no objections from the Commission it was so ordered. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 15 Chairman Lyon moved to accept Staff's recommendation to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the Planning Commission of September 26, 2000. With no objections from the Commission, the motion was passed (5-0). 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 24 -REVISION 'B' AND TRACT NO 33034 - AMENDMENT NO 2- Palos Verdes Panorama Owners Association, Jon & Renee Cartwright, 30630 Calle De Suenos Commissioner Cartwright recused himself from discussion on this item and left the dais. Senior Planner Fox presented the Staff Report. He informed the Commission the other changes that were discussed with the applicant regarding language changes to the resolution on page 6 draft resolution, condition number 10 (strike out ... revision by the Planning Commission., 11 c (strike out ... dedicated trail}, and on page 10, condition number 24 (after... commonly owned areas . add in parenthesis (lot 12), and on the following line after ...appurtenant structures on. strike out Lot 12 He noted that no gates were proposed and there was no existing emergency access away that would be affected by this proposal He also told the Commission that Staff had recently found another notation on the tract map which stated that the City had never accepted the private portion of Calle De Suenos for public use. Senior Planner Fox stated that Staff believed most of the modifications proposed by the homeowners association were appropriate. He recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit and recommend approval of the Tract Amendment to the City Council. Senior Planner Fox noted that the Tract Amendment is tentatively scheduled for hearing at the Council Meeting of September 5, 2000 and that the Council had the authority to initiate the formal vacation of the access easement if approved Chairman Lyon opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jon Cartwright, 30630 Calle De Suenos, president of the homeowners association, commended Staff on an excellent analysis, agreed with the Staff Report in general, and requested approval of the additional and minor modifications to the resolution. Mr. Cartwright stated that the purpose of this application was to clarify the status of the private portion on Calle De Suenos and also clean up some confusing language in the conditions of approval. He stated that the property began as a private road built by the developer and that the homeowners association always maintained that road. Mr. Cartwright stated that in 1989 the City denied the request for gates at Calle De Suenos because it would prevent the public from utilizing the private street. He stated that there was nothing in the record indicating that the developer or the homeowners association intended to dedicate this street to the City nor was anything in the record indicating that the City ever expected to accept this street. He also noted that when the City denied the request for the gate, the findings stated that a gate would preclude the public use of the street. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 16 Mr. Cartwright felt that the language on the final map was misleading and that the Council never intended to accept the street for public use He noted that the City's subdivision ordinance prohibits the dedication of private streets for public use and has done so since 1977. He said that it appears that this notation on the tract map' . we hereby offer for public use ..'should have never been placed on the final tract map Mr. Cartwright stated that the association has expended $70,000.00 for maintenance and operation of this road since 1989. With regard to the access easement, Mr. Cartwright stated that there was no purpose in the City maintaining the sewer access easement since there are no manholes to access the sewer from 30630 Calle De Suenos. He also asked for the restrictions on the types of walls and fences on the property to be removed since that sewer easement affects other homeowners in the area but they have no similar restrictions Mr. Cartwright summarized the requested changes to Conditions 10, 11 c, and 24. Mr. Cartwright thanked the Commission for considering this item and requested support of staff's recommendation. Chairman Lyon asked who paid for the initial construction of the street and Mr. Cartwright replied that it was the developer. Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Cartwright why he believed that it was necessary to dedicate to the City the right to prohibit construction on Lot 12 as indicated in condition number 24. Mr Cartwright replied that he did not believe that was necessary to give the City that right, but this was noted on the tract map Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Cartwright if he had any objections in deleting condition number 24 and Mr Cartwright replied that he would like to see it deleted. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Cartwright if this application was a 'stalking horse' for a subsequent application to have gates on Calle De Suenos. Mr. Cartwright replied that there are no plans at this time to create a gate, but that the homeowners association simply wants clarification of whether or not this street is private Joy Caswell, 30573 Camino Porvenir, opposed the modification to the conditions of approval and stated that although Mr Cartwright recused himself from Commission discussion of this item, she felt that it was irregular for him to give testimony in this matter. She also questioned the appropriateness of the fee waiver that had been granted. Louis Fabreque, 30564 Camino Porvenir, stated that he was concerned about being cut off from emergency vehicle access if a disaster should occur in the neighborhood. Mr. Fabregue was also concerned about the possibility of a potential gate erected next to the pathway to Point Vicente School and stated that there would be no means for vehicles to turn around when dropping off children. Carl Steadly, 30615 Calle De Suenos, stated that he had a problem with Mr. Cartwright's role in this application and questioned why it took 12 years for the Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 17 association to resolve this matter He stated that he was concerned about parents dropping off their children at the rotary and making sure that there is adequate space for these vehicles at the entrance to move forward and be able to go around the rotary if a gate is installed Mr Steadly stated that it would create a potential safety hazard if there were a gate application submitted in the future Mr Steadly stated that his children were told that they were not allowed to play on Calle De Suenos James Hume, 30618 Calle De Suenos, stated that his main concern was that the removal of the access easement restrictions would facilitate the placement of a future gate at an unsafe location He also concerned that pedestrian access would be maintained on Calle De Suenos even if a gate was erected in the future Mr Cartwright returned to the podium for rebuttal and stated that the access easement in question does not include the private road into the development. With regard to the access easement, Mr Cartwright clarified that it was association property in 1989, but that portions of it are now owned by Mr Hume and himself as private property Mr Cartwright also stated that he had no interest in putting a gate on his property and therefore no one should think that the homeowners association would put a gate on his private property He did not feel that it was the association's obligation to provide a turnaround for the public at the entry circle since it is private property, and the association has always exercised control of the private street. He noted that children are not allowed to play in the entry circle nor is parking permitted in this area On occasion we have asked pedestrians to leave the private street whenever anyone is doing something that is detrimental to the homeowners and on several occasions members have had the sheriff remove people Mr Cartwright stated that overnight parking is prohibited on the private road, and this includes the public as well as members of the association Commissioner Long moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. With no objection, the Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Lyon asked for Commission discussion and comment. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated there were errors made by the previous director in 1989 and all that needed to be done were modifications to the conditions of approval to correct these errors and that he was in favor of the proposed modifications Commissioner Long commended staff on the staff report and said that he was inclined to go along with all staff recommendations and that the Commission's action in no way reflects any judgement on the idea of a gate Commissioner Long felt that there were clearly defined procedural errors made, as Commissioner Vannorsdall had pointed out, as well as some mistaken assumptions that the private street had been accepted for public use Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 18 0' 9 Commissioner Paulson stated that he did not believe in keeping an easement in place that did not serve a useful purpose, and stated that he supported staffs recommendation. Chairman Lyon concurred with the other Commissioner's comments, but said that he would like to see condition number 24 on page 10 deleted and suggested including this in the motion. Commissioner Long stated that there was a distinction between the City prohibiting everything on Lot 12 under Condition Number 24, and the City restricting the Development of Lot 12 to those uses that could be approved through the normal review process. He felt that the condition made sense as written and supported Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Paulson suggested Condition Number 24 be revised to add 'provided that the appropriate city permits are obtained.' Chairman Lyon withdrew his suggestion to delete condition number 24. Chairman Lyon re -opened the Public Hearing for Mr. Hume to speak. Mr. Hume asked if the public was free to walk down the subject street or can the association restrict pedestrian access to the private street. Commissioner Long replied that no action by the Commission would effect that issue one way or the other, but that if an application for a gate is submitted it could be addressed at that time. Chairman Lyon added that the issue was one of liability and that a private property owner certainly has the right to discourage or prohibit people from coming into their property. Mr. Hume requested it be noted for the record that Mr Cartwright had stated that the Association never intended to prohibit pedestrians and the public at the turnaround Director/Secretary Rojas pointed out that Section 3 of the draft resolution clarifies that any future requests for vehicular gates or access controls will require a Conditional Use Permit revision by the Commission. Chairman Lyon closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Long moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-27, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 24 -Revision V and recommending approval of Tract No. 33034 -Amendment No. 2 to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paulson and passed by (4-0-1) by a roll call vote with Commissioner Cartwright abstaining. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 19 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 9 PRE -AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 22 2000 Commission None. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Lyon moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. to August 22, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2000 Page 20