Loading...
PC MINS 20001114r i CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2000 ROLL CALL Approved Nov tuber 28, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:00 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Building, 27301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Paulson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, Chairman Lyon Absent None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objection, Chairman Lyon approved the agenda as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Secretary Rojas reported that at the upcoming City Council meeting of November 21, 2000 the Planning Commission's proposal for a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop will be presented. Director/Secretary Rous stated there was one item of late correspondence regarding agenda item No 3, which came in after the Monday deadline The Planning Commission directed staff to distribute the letter to the Planning Commission CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of October 24, 2000 Commissioner Mueller noted that on page 10 of the minutes, the first paragraph did not include his entire statement and asked staff to clarify the paragraph after listening to the tape Commissioner Paulson noted a typo on page 4 of the minutes He also noted that on page 5, last paragraph, the sheriff's department had responsibility in the area and not the private security force hired by the developer. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed Vice Chairman Clark pointed out two typos on page 6 of the minutes. Chairman Lyon noted typos on page 11 of the minutes, asked for a paragraph on page 12 to be clarified, and noted that the vote was not shown for the item ending on page 13. There being no objections, the minutes were approved as amended, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 2. Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No. 8637 — Time Extension: Sanjay and Kirti Celly, 27041 Whitestone Road. Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that the applicants were requesting a time extension of a project that was heard by the Planning Commission on an appeal of the Director's decision He noted that, according to the Development Code, approvals obtained on an appeal are valid for six months. The approval expired on August 22, 2000. However, the applicants requested a one-year time extension on July 31, 2000 due to substantial hardships that resulted in delays. He noted that although the applicants are requesting a one-year time extension, the Development Code limits the time extension on an appeal decision to six months. Therefore, staff recommended the Planning Commission grant a six-month extension, to February 22, 2001, via minute order Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Kirti Celly 27041 Whitestone Road (applicant) explained that the original architect for the project no longer was associated with the project and she has not yet been able to hire another architect. She further felt that, since the original planner for this project no longer works for the City, there have been many delays in the dealings with the City. Therefore, she was requesting a one-year extension of the project from tonight's meeting She noted that she had not yet received a copy of the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2400 Page 2 Commissioner Long asked staff what the Development Code allowed as far as extensions Associate Planner Mihranian responded that the Development Code allowed a one time, six-month extension. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the Development Code states that an extension may be granted for up to 180 days. Staff has interpreted that to mean that less time may be granted but that it does not give the authority to grant more. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that in the past the Planning Commission has granted more than one six-month extension on projects. He felt it was acceptable to come back in six months to request another six-month extension. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed that in the past applicants have been granted more than one extension Commissioner Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the time extension as recommended by staff. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the applicant could request a second six-month extension. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that if the applicant were to request an additional extension staff would have to recommend denial of the extension as the current language in the Development Code did not allow a second extension. At the request of Commissioner Long, Director/Sectary Rojas read aloud the exact code section relating to time extensions. After listening to the exact code section, Commissioner Long felt the Commission could only grant a six-month extension from August 22, 2000, which was when the approval expired Chairman Lyon suggested extending the approval for six months from tonight's date. Vice Chairman Clark felt that there had been precedence set to allow for more than one six-month time extension Commissioner Long felt that precedence may have been in error since there was specific language in the Code regarding extensions. Commissioner Long seconded Commissioner Vannorsdall's motion. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that for as long as he had been on the Planning Commission repeated requests for additional time extensions had been granted He felt that the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to warrant a further time extension. He noted that it may not be specifically in the Code but it had been practiced many times by the Commission Commissioner Paulson felt the Planning Commission should comply with the Code by adopting the staff's recommendation and if the applicant returns to ask for another extension, the Planning Commission should then make their decision at that time. Chairman Lyon moved to amend the motion to extend the approval period from six months from today's date, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. The motion failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Long, Mueller, Paulson, and Vannorsdall dissenting. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the previous Code was vague in addressing extensions. He noted that the 1997 amendments to the Code allowed a one time, six- month extension. However, even though there is precedence set fore more than one extension in the past, the code did change in 1997 to be more specific on this issue. Vice Chairman Clark asked staff if this application had fallen between the cracks, as the applicant had stated, with the departure of planning staff. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the project planner was no longer with the City and the department has also lost another planner since then. Therefore, it has taken the department a little longer than usual to reassign this project He also stated that he met with the applicants in May when they first considered modifying their approved plan and advised them of the process involved to seek an extension and that extensions were routinely approved Vice Chairman Clark felt there were special circumstances in this project. He stated that the applicant had shown a desire to continue with the project but needed a new architect and had some delays through the Planning Department. He felt that in a City that tries to work with the residents that the Planning Commission should consider the circumstances in this extension. Commissioner Long responded that the power of the Planning Commission was limited to what was given to them by the Development Code Chairman Lyon felt the Planning Commission could go one step beyond the Development Code to consider what was fair and right in each situation. As long as there was nothing prohibiting the Planning Commission from doing something, he felt the Planning Commission should do what was right Commissioner Cartwright was concerned that staff felt there was no latitude to extend this application more than one time and felt there must be some way the applicant, with Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 4 this kind of hardship, could request and receive an additional extension at the end of the original 180 day extension. Commissioner Paulson did not think the door was closed Staff may recommend, based on the Code, denial of the second extension However, it may be the Commission's desire at that time to grant a second extension Commissioner Vannorsdall repeated his motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Long, to approve the staff recommendation as presented. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 158 — Revision `C', Coastal Permit No. 94 — Revision 'A', Encroachment Permit No. 32, and Sian Permit No. 1096: Oceanfront Estates, Palos Verdes Drive West and Hawthorne Blvd. Commissioner Long recused himself from this item, as his law firm represents Capitol Pacific Holdings, and left the dais for the hearing. Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report He briefly reviewed the decision made at the last Planning Commission meeting. He explained that the observation booths at Calle Entradero and Via Vicente have been moved farther back from Palos Verdes Drive West and the silhouettes have been modified to reflect a 14 -foot and 12 -foot tall booth. He noted that the proposed booths both still exceed the 120 square foot standard of the City and the Site Plan still depicts non-functional gates at the booths. He explained that staff felt the relocation of the booths did provide for increased queuing area for vehicles, however staff did not believe the revised location addressed view impairment or psychological barrier to entry issues. Therefore staff did not support the revised location of the booths. He explained that the developer provided an option to construct 3 tract entry observation booths in the small medians at the entry to the interior streets of the tract Staff felt that this placement of the booths reduces or eliminates the view impairment and presents less of a psychological barrier to entry and public access. He explained that each booth is proposed at 15 -feet tall and 329 square feet in area. Mr. Fox noted that the developer wanted the larger booths to accommodate a handicapped restroom. However, staff confirmed that the Island View development was able to provide a handicapped accessible restroom within the confines of a 12 -foot tall, 120 square foot booth area. As such, staff did not feel the applicant demonstrated compelling justification for the larger booths and recommended denial of the alternative booths on that basis. With respect to other issues raised at the last Planning Commission meeting, the developer continues to work on completion of the blufftop loop road and offstreet parking areas. Staff recommends requiring the developer to complete this work within 30 days of the final date of city action on this application Staff also recommended that the developer prepare a sign plan for public access and trails Finally, the developer has trimmed the landscaping along Palos Verdes Drive West so as not to exceed the tract perimeter fencing In conclusion, staff Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 5 recommended conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No 158 Revision 'C' and Sign Permit No 1096 and denying Coastal Permit No 94 Revision Wand Encroachment Permit No 32 Commissioner Paulson asked staff to explain their understanding of the purposes of these observation booths Senior Planner Fox stated that it was staff's understanding that these booths were to provide a location for security personnel to monitor or possibly video tape persons entering and exiting the tract. The personnel were to provide a sense of security to persons purchasing the homes in the neighborhood Commissioner Paulson stated that the guard booths were on City owned property and asked if there were any liability issues with a private entity video taping cars that were traveling on public streets Senior Planner Fox stated that the issue had been introduced during the hearing for the guard booths at the Island View tract. At that time the City Attorney felt there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for persons driving on public streets and did not see a problem with allowing Island View to videotape cars coming in and out of the tract. Commissioner Paulson asked staff if the Planning Commission was to be considering the landscaping plans Senior Planner Fox responded that there was a condition in the Resolution specifically indicating the landscaping shown on the plan was not part of the request. A more precise landscaping plan will be presented to staff for review at a later date Chairman Lyon commented that at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commission had sent the applicant away with some suggestions and clear direction on what was acceptable and what was not. He felt the developer had come back with only minor changes to what had been originally proposed, which was not consistent with the Planning Commission direction Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Rob Katherman (representing the applicant) 19300 S Hamilton Ave #230, Gardena stated that the applicant would withdraw their request for the security booths at the front entrances of the development and focus on the three booths on the interior streets of the development. He stated that the non-functional gates would be removed from the plan He discussed the ridge height of the proposed booths and stated that it was 12 feet in height. However, there was a cupola on the roof, to provide some design interest to the building The height of the cupola was approximately 5 feet. He felt that in a development of upscale homes it was important not to put a boxy feature at the entrances to the development. Mr Katherman discussed the Coastal Act. He felt that the new location of the observation booths, off of the main loop road, provided the Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 6 balance required for coastal access to the public and protecting the private property rights of the future homeowners. He discussed the size of the booths and noted that they would be placed in a large circular median. The shape of the building would be in keeping with the circular shape of the median and would provide something that was attractive to the area The architecture would blend in and enhance the homes in the development In summary, Mr. Katherman asked the Planning Commission to consider the request to allow the observation booths in the newly proposed locations. He felt what was proposed was a valid compromise Commissioner Cartwright stated that the Planning Commission had expressed concern at the last meeting over the size and height of the previously proposed guard booths. He asked Mr. Katherman why then the developer was now proposing a higher, larger guard booth than the previous ones Mr. Katherman responded that the ridge height had been reduced from 14 feet to 12 feet. The cupola on top of the building did raise the height to close to 15 feet. The cupola is an architectural feature that the Planning Commission could use their discretion on. He explained that the size of the buildings were not based on a desire to create a monstrosity in front of the homes, but rather to provide a building that the architect had a sense of proportionality and character to it. Commissioner Paulson asked if the developer had looked into alternative measures to meet security concerns, other than observation booths Mr Katherman answered that roving patrols had been considered and would be used in addition to the observation booths. Commissioner Paulson asked if the architect had been asked to design an observation booth based on the city parameters. Mr. Katherman stated he would have to defer to the representative from CPH to answer that question. Tim Hamilton (representing Capitol Pacific Homes) stated that the information was given to the architect with instructions to attempt to meet the Commission's request to consider the relocation of the booths He was asked to try to find something that would look in keeping with the houses in the project Commissioner Paulson asked Mr Hamilton if it was his intent to video the cars entering and exiting the development 24 hours a day Mr Hamilton answered that no set plans have been made, but it would seem the sensible thing to do Long term, he felt the homeowners association would make the decisions of video taping Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2400 Page 7 Nick Mowlds 6832 Verde Ridge Road stated that he was on the Planning Commission when this project was approved and at the time it was very specifically stated that there would be nothing blocking the view of people driving along Palos Verdes Drive South. He was disappointed to see vegetation allowed along the fence after the prior Commission had worked for 90 percent light and air requirement on the fence He stated that he was involved with the Island View community and that there were no longer guards in the booths. Island View has found it much more economical to run video cameras 24 hours a day. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr Mowlds his opinion on the newly proposed guard booths. Mr. Mowlds responded that he did not think a small guard booth similar to the ones at Island View would be appropriate for this development. He did not think the guard booths should be located near Palos Verdes Drive South, however, and supported the alternatively proposed locations Suzanne Detwiler 3 Clipper Road #C objected to the guard booths being placed on city property and felt that security should be a responsibility of the homeowners association She did not feel that anything that could be construed as an intimidating presence for security purposes should be located on city property. She did not think these booths should be seen from Palos Verdes Drive West or Hawthorne Boulevard. She requested the landscaping be kept low to preserve the view corridor Virginia Leon 30413 Via Cambron felt very strongly that the view corridor along Palos Verdes Drive West be maintained. She further stated that she was still against any type of guard or observation booth at the development. Penny Fooks 30457 Via Cambron stated that she had spoken in opposition to the project at the last public hearing. However, she has since looked at the project and felt that the developer had attempted to compromise and had suggested locations for the guard booths that make sense. She did not feel the new locations disrupted the view from Palos Verdes Drive West. Regarding the size, she did not see any negative or positive affect on the public by having them larger. Robin Lynch 30413 Via Cambron stated that the new location for the guard booths was a nice compromise She felt the signs on Palos Verdes Drive West were too commercial and not in keeping with the theme of the City. She also felt the fountain and wall were too garish Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Paulson complimented the applicant for listening to the Planning Commission and making an effort to find an acceptable compromise He stated that the new locations for the booths were acceptable to him, however he was still concerned Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 8 with the size of the booths. He felt that if the cupola were removed, the height of the structure would be acceptable. Commissioner Cartwright also commended the applicant for being sensitive to the public and Planning Commission concerns He was particularly pleased that the non- functioning gate had been removed from the plan. He too was pleased with the relocation of the booths but was also concerned with the height, size, and mass of the structures. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he was against the use of observation booths in the public right-of-way He felt it was an intimidation to the public using public streets and did not think it was appropriate. He did not think this type of arrangement would solve any problems. Commissioner Mueller stated that his main concerns were to preserve the views from Palos Verdes Drive West and the intimidation factor to the public He was pleased that the booths had been moved further into the development. He was concerned about the height and felt that the cupola may have to be removed He was also concerned about the size of the structure, but felt that if they were not visible from Palos Verdes Drive West then it may not be as important He too was pleased that the non-functional gate had been removed from the proposal. Vice Chairman Clark supported the alternate location of the booths He felt it was a balance of rights and needs between the community and the developer. He felt that removing the booths from the tract entry removed the potential psychological barrier to the public access. He felt that together with the proper signage there should be a more enhanced utilization by the public of the land that is dedicated to the public Mr Clark felt that the cupola may be aesthetically interesting in the design, was not necessary for the overall compatibility with the rest of the project. Removing the cupola would lower the height to 12 feet, which was more acceptable to him. The size of the structure was a concern, and Mr Clark suggested a compromise between the city requirement and the developer's design He felt that reducing the size to 250 square feet would be an appropriate size. He also suggested a 6 -month review of the project to access how the observation booths are actually operating Chairman Lyon felt that the public had made many valuable comments at both of the meetings and the applicant had been responsive to those comments in presenting the revised proposal He felt the relocation of the observation booths to the interior streets is now proper. He did not have a problem with the size of the booths as long as they were architecturally pleasing and not offensive to the public. He felt that the new location would not deter the public from using the public road to access the trails and did not think there was a view obstruction at 12 or 15 -feet in height. Commissioner Paulson asked for clarification as to whether the Commission would be approving simply a building or approving a manned observation facility Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 9 Senior Planner Fox stated that the Planning Commission was considering a building that would serve as an observation booth. Chairman Lyon added that Mr. Clark's suggestion of requiring a 6 -month review would also address any problems that might exist at that time Vice Chairman Clark moved to approve the project with the following revisions. the observation booths be moved to the three interior entries; the height of the observation be no more than 12 -feet in height; the cupolas be removed; the size of the booths be no more than 250 square feet; add a condition to the conditions of approval that requires a 6 -month review on the operation of the observation booth; appropriate signage be added to the 3 observation booths; removal of the non-functional gates; and if the use of the booths are to change it must then return to the Planning Commission for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (5-1-1) with Commissioner Vannorsdall dissenting and Commissioner Long recused. Director/Secretary Rous noted that the revised Resolution would be presented at the next meeting for approval. He also noted that there was a problem with the Permit Streamling time limits and asked the applicant for an extension, which the applicant agreed to. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9.20 p m. the Planning Commission took a short break until 9 30 p.m. at which time they reconvened, with all Commissioners present. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Site Plan Review No. 8697 — Revision 'A': The Villas at Rancho Palos Verdes 7700 Beachview Drive. Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained that the applicant requested modification to a condition of approval of the original 1998 decision The applicant was requesting the use of chain link fencing instead of the required transparent glass around the perimeter of the tennis court. Mr Schonborn noted that use of the transparent glass was very expensive and also created an issue of potential glare and reflection which could not be treated or mitigated. Staff determined that the chain link fence would not result in any impact beyond that already associated with the transparent glass. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the application. Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-40, thereby approving Site Plan Review No. 8697 — Revision `A' amending Condition of Approval Nos. 13 and 15, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 10 5. Height Variation No. 899 and Grading Permit No. 2151: Joe Nassiri (applicant) 3787 Coolheights Drive. Associate Planner Mihranian presented a brief staff report explaining that during the noticing period staff had received several letters from surrounding property owners regarding the proposed project, with concerns pertaining to view impacts, trail easements, and brush removal. Staff felt that additional time was needed to research and obtain additional information regarding the concerns, the applicant was contacted and it was agreed the project should be continued to a date uncertain. He explained that when all of the necessary information had been obtained, the project would be re - noticed There being no objections, Chairman Lyon ordered the item tabled, with appropriate public notices re -circulated and republished in accordance to the Development Code, prior to any hearings on the project. 6. Height Variation No 900 and Site Plan Review No. 8769: Craig Quinn, 5743 Sunmist Drive. Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained the proposed project and the need for the Height Variation and Site Plan Review applications He explained that during the required noticing period several letters were submitted to the City from the neighbor to the immediate east (5733 Sunmist Drive) The concerns raised pertained to the impairment of ocean and island views, the impairment of sunset views, neighborhood compatibility, and the decrease of property value due to potential view impairment He noted that staff was unable to assess whether there would be an impact in property values In regards to concerns pertaining to ocean and island views, he explained that pursuant to the Development Code, the height variation guidelines indicate the protected viewing areas are defined as the primary living spaces, such as the living room, dining room, family room, or kitchen on the level nearest grade. The only exception to that would be when the primary living space is located on the upper level for a home originally constructed that way without a height variation. He explained that according to a site visit the view impairment in question occurs from the bedrooms on the upper level located over the existing garage. He explained that although staff does believe that a view impairment exists from the upper level bedroom area, based on the layout of the floor plan and the primary living spaces being located on the lower level, staff did not believe the view constituted a protected viewing area He further noted that staff felt the proposed project was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would be only slightly larger than the largest of the surrounding homes He stated that staff felt the project was designed to be compatible with the neighborhood He distributed a photo board showing the potential view impairment as taken from the bedroom area of the neighbor to the east of the applicant and photos showing what currently exists in the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, based on staff analysis, staff recommended approval of the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2400 Page 11 0 Commissioner Paulson asked if the property owner could plant trees along the eastern boundary of the property that grew to block the views of the neighbor to the east, was there any mechanism in place to prevent this view blockage. Commissioner Long stated that as long as the trees do not block a view from a protected viewing area, there is nothing to prevent the view blockage from these trees. He stated that he did not particularly like the way the viewing area was defined in the Code. Commissioner Mueller asked about the feasibility of putting the addition over the living room, dining room, and kitchen area. Associate Planner Mihranian explained that the Code allows a structure to be built to a height of 16 feet and anything beyond that height would require a Height Variation He also explained that a Height Variation allows a structure to be built to 26 feet and anything beyond that would require a Variance. In reviewing the project staff had looked at the possibility of taking the extra square footage and locating it elsewhere on the structure. Taking into account the existing grade elevations, if the square footage were to be placed over the entrance level there was a potential that the height would exceed 26 feet He noted that this was not a suggested alternative by the applicants, but merely part of staffs analysis. Craig Quinn (applicant) 5743 Sunmist Drive stated that the reason for the addition was to extend the square footage of the house, as they had recently added a child to their family He explained that he had taken a great deal of effort to minimize any impairment He noted that he had recently removed a large tree on the east side of the property. Commissioner Cartwright asked what sort of things were done to minimize view impairment. Mr Quinn explained that rather than increase the height of the bedroom ceiling area, they opted to keep the roofline the same as the existing roofline. He attempted to keep the proposal in compliance with the other homes in the area Commissioner Cartwright clarified that he understood that the view impairment he was speaking of was general neighborhood view impairment, not view impairment to the east of his property. Mr. Quinn stated that was correct Commissioner Paulson asked if the silhouette of the project, closest to the street frontage, represented the point where the eave overhang would be or where the wall would be. Robert Treman (architect) 2100 N Sepulveda Blvd Manhattan Beach, stated that was where the wall would be. There would be an overhang of approximately 18 inches Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 12 beyond that. He stated that they were attempting to match the existing roof and building Commissioner Mueller asked if they had considered any alternatives to the current design in an attempt to minimize view impairment Mr. Treman stated that it was never a consideration to do that when he was hired. He stated that the objectives were to bring the mass over the garage to take advantage of the views. Charles Holzer 5733 Sunmist Drive stated that the room that the view was being considered from was not a bedroom but a den. He noted that recently his health had declined and he could no longer go out. Therefore, he spends much more time in his den enjoying the view it provides He felt there were alternative designs that could be explored that would minimize his view impairment and would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Holzer pointed out that the architect had stated that this design was being utilized to capture a view, which he felt would be at his expense He also pointed out that this was the only room in his home that provided this view Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Holzer if he had added on to his house any time in the past Mr. Holzer responded that he had not, that it originally had a second story over the garage Chairman Lyon asked, in consideration of a viewing area, whether it mattered if a bedroom were used as a den rather than as a bedroom Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the language In the code specifies whether the viewing area is in a portion of the house that would require a height variation if that house were to be built under today's code The exception being if it is a gathering space He felt the Planning Commission had discretion to determine if a den meets the definition of a primary use area. He noted that staff did not feel this was a primary use area since there was a living room and family room on the lower level, which was where the primary viewing area would be. In this situation staff felt that there is no protected viewing area on the second level because of the location of the living room. Chairman Lyon felt that the most important and best view from this house was from the den upstairs: Commissioner Long asked where the exact language was located which stated that if bedrooms are located on a second floor they could not be used as a primary viewing area Director/Secretary Rojas directed Commissioner Long to the Height Variation guidelines and findings Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 13 Bob Galaway 2312 243rd Street, Lomita, stated that he has known the Holzers for over 17 years and in that entire time the room in question has always been used as a den and never as a bedroom He added that the room was chosen to be used as a den because of the view from the room He felt the applicant should consider alternative plans for the addition, and even a 28 foot ridge height, in a different location, would not impair the view of houses behind or to the north of the applicant. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing Commissioner Mueller felt that there could be an alternative plan but did not think one had ever been considered or discussed He understood that the view from the den was not protected He was concerned with the percentage of coverage over the garage and asked staff to explain Associate Planner Mihranian answered that the addition was covering 100 percent of the existing garage footprint, and to create some sort of articulation between the two levels, the applicants are expanding the lower level garage by 94 square feet. He explained that there was nothing in the code prohibiting 100 percent coverage of the garage, only that if it exceeds 60 percent coverage of the garage, the project must come before the Planning Commission for review Commissioner Long stated that if he were able to make a decision based solely on what was right, he would be inclined to vote against the project. He noted that the architect had stated that nothing was really explored to consider alternate ways to lessen the view impact on the neighbor However, in reviewing the findings that the Planning Commission is required to make, Commissioner Long did not think any of the findings appeared to be an issue except for findings 4, 5, and 6 He agreed with staff's analysis regarding finding no 5, which was that there was no significant cumulative view impairment. In analyzing finding no 6, he did not feel the bedrooms under the existing guidelines qualified as a viewing area He did not think it was reasonable to interpret the code to allow someone to change the viewing area by modifying the bedroom into a den Therefore, he felt findings 5 and 6 could be made He felt that the analysis regarding finding no 4 was fundamentally flawed He explained that staff's method of evaluating finding no 4 effectively collapsed that requirement of the ordinance into finding no 6 such that the two were treated as one An interpretation of an ordinance the renders part of its language superfluous is disfavored He felt references to protected views implied it was a defined term in the code He stated that protected views are not a defined term in the code Mr Long stated that finding no 4 does not say that the view impairment is from a protected view, significant view, or from viewing areas Accordingly, he felt one could consider views in an abstract sense in finding no 4 He concluded by saying he had not yet made up his mind on whether finding no 4 could be made Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that the percentage of coverage over the garage troubled him However, there was a strong neighborhood presence of similar structures built entirely over the garage He was sympathetic to the Holzers regarding the loss of Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 14 view, but did not feel this was a protected view He encouraged the applicant to consider some type of compromise with the Holzers Commissioner Cartwright also sympathized with the Holzers However, he explained that the Planning Commission was bound by the code. Setting aside the view issue, he felt the proposal was compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. He did not think there was a privacy issue but felt there was definitely a view impact. However, he did not think the view was a protected view Commissioner Paulson stated that he too very much sympathized with the Holzers Unfortunately, based on the interpretation of the code, he could not find a basis to disagree with staff's recommendations. Chairman Lyon re -opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Quinn if he understood how his project would impact his neighbor and what it would mean to him to lose his view He asked Mr. Quinn if he had considered any alternate approaches to his proposed addition Mr. Quinn stated that he had considered alternatives. He felt he was only partially impacting Mr. Holzer's view and that there was still a partial view remaining from the den. He stated that the alternatives he had explored did not make sense in relationship to the existing layout of the home. He again noted that he had removed a tree on his property that opened up a new view for the Holzers. Sandra Holzer (applicant) 5733 Sunmist Drive explained that the most important view from the den was the view of the sunset This view was not available from anywhere else on the property. She stated that the entire sunset view would be lost with this addition. She stated that since her husband's health has declined he spends much of his time in his den. She stated that the tree that was removed from Mr Quinn's property was never high enough to block views from her property. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Long asked that if one assumes that finding no. 4 does not apply only to protected views, but instead is assumed to apply to view as defined in the code, does staff still think that finding no 4 can be made Director/Secretary Rojas answered no and stated that staff made finding no 4 with the interpretation that view means from a protected viewing area Commissioner Long asked if staff had enough facts that they could conclude that the only logical way to add on the square footage desired by the applicant was to use the proposed design. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that staff did not. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 15 Vice Chairman Clark suggested recommending the applicant look at alternative designs for the proposed remodel that further minimizes impacts to his neighbor. He stated that this direction had been given many times by the Planning Commission and felt there was a credible, reasonable basis to request it with this project. Chairman Lyon asked staff if the silhouette at the property represents the outline of the structure to be constructed Associate Planner Mihranian answered that it does represent the structure, but does not represent the roof eaves, which may extend out another 18 inches Chairman Lyon noted that the most prominent view from the den was that of Catalina Island, which would not be blocked. He noted that there were times of the year when the sunset would be obscured, and there are limited days when it is clear enough to see the sunset Therefore, he could see where there would be some view obstruction, but he did not think it was significant. However he sympathized with the Holzers. He stated that historically the Planning Commission and staff have interpreted finding no. 4 as reasonably minimizing impairment of a protected view. He felt he was willing to approve the request, but was very sympathetic to the neighbors. Commissioner Paulson asked Commissioner Long if he would have the same feelings if trees were planted that blocked a view. Commissioner Long responded that the trees would have to significantly impair a view. Significant impairment would be determined from a viewing area and the only remedy would be to cut the trees to a height of 16 feet However, in this situation he was having trouble making finding no 4 because he does not know if any alternatives have been looked at He could not insert the word "protected" before view even though it may have been the tradition of staff and the Planning Commission to do so in the past He felt that by doing so finding no. 4 will have been made whenever finding no. 6 is made. Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve the staff recommendations as presented, seconded by Chairman Lyon. The motion failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, and Vice Chairman Clark dissenting. Vice Chairman Clark moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to work with staff and bring back to the Planning Commission some alternative approaches to the proposed remodel that would minimize the view impacts to the neighbor, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Chairman Lyon asked if the motion should be more specific in terms of the nature of the plans. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 16 Commissioner Long felt the plans presented should be sufficient to enable the Planning Commission to make finding no. 4. Vice Chairman Clark noted that there is no inherent right to a height variation and in order to receive an approval on a height variation request the Planning Commission must make the findings, inclusive of finding no.4, as directed by the Development Code. He felt there were at least two Commissioners who could not currently make finding no. 4. Commissioner Long stated that either the evidence presented the next time the Planning Commission hears this item will allow him to make finding no 4 or it won't His vote will be based upon the presentation at that time Commissioner Cartwright stated that the applicant had indicated that he had conceptually considered alternatives but had rejected them because of the existing layout He felt the applicant had ended up with a design that met his needs and did not think the Planning Commission should direct him to spend more time and money to return with alternative designs that he may not be interested in He felt the Planning Commission should ask him now if he was interested in doing that before voting on the motion Chairman Lyon re -opened the public hearing. Mr. Quinn stated that there had been a great deal of expense involved in having the current plans designed and presented to the Planning Commission He felt it would be more difficult and costly to redesign the project, however he would be willing to put together an alternative plan He asked what he needed to come back with and at what expense Commissioner Long answered that the Planning Commission was not telling him what alternative to choose, but to explore alternatives. Further, after exploring the alternatives, if he felt that the first alternative was his choice he should be able to document the reasons for this. Commissioner Paulson added that there has been no implication from any of the Planning Commissioners to spend a great deal of money to develop a new set of plans for the alternatives. Chairman Lyon noted that in the staff report there was an analysis of an alternate plan. He asked the Commission if something similar to this would satisfy them in considering further alternatives. Commissioner Long did not feel there was a need to pre -judge He felt the applicant could submit anything to the Commission that he feels would help the Commission make finding no. 4. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 17 Vice Chairman Clark amended his motion to continue the item and direct the applicant to meet with staff to review possible alternative approaches to the addition. Further, the Planning Commission would request that the applicant discuss with the neighbor his concerns in considering the design, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Director/Secretary Rojas added that staff realized that there are options to moving the second story so there may not be a view impairment. However, staff also recognizes there may be constraints within the maximum 26 -foot height limit which would require a Variance He felt that staff was prepared to work with the applicant to discuss alternatives Chairman Lyon asked Mr Quinn if he understood what was being asked of him Mr Quinn responded that he understood Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing Director/Secretary Rojas stated that without a date certain for the continuance, the project would have to be re -noticed He stated that the Planning Commission could continue the project to a date uncertain, or choose a date now to continue the hearing Mr Quinn requested a continuance to the first meeting in January Vice Chairman amended his motion to continue the item to the meeting of January 9, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. The motion passed, (6-1) with Commissioner Cartwright dissenting. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 18