Loading...
PC MINS 20021112Approved November 2002 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7 03 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cote, Duran Reed, Lyon, Mueller, Tomblin, Chairman Cartwright Absent: Vice Chairman Long was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Blumenthal, Assistant Planner Luckert, Assistant Planner Yu, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Duran Reed suggested, because of the size of the agenda, moving the consent calendar to the end of the agenda The Planning Commission agreed COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed two letters of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No 5 and comments from Commissioner Duran Reed regarding her suggested corrections to the minutes (Agenda Item No 1) He also updated the Commission on the status of the Coolheights project. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he had responded to an e-mail he had received Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she too had responded to the same e-mail Commissioner Tomblin had responded to COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (REGARDiHG MON-AGENDA IITEMS) None i CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 185 RevWon 'C' Qase No. ZON2002®000346). 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South / Wayfarer's C hapeO Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report He explained that the Planning Commission had continued the Item to allow staff to confer with the City Attorney about the appropriate language for one of the recommended conditions of approval Accordingly, staff did discuss the matter with the City Attorney, and in order to avoid potential conflicts with the First Amendment by restricting the types of uses or the number weddings receptions within the building, the City Attorney recommended limiting the number of people that may use the Visitor's Center As such, staff has modified the recommended condition of approval no 7 He noted that the Planning Commission had also expressed concerns about potential noise coming from the Visitor's Center when used for weddings or wedding receptions. Accordingly, staff has added two additional recommended conditions of approval (no 9 and no 10) He stated that with these revisions, staff was recommending approval of Revision `C' to the Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Mueller asked why there was no written correspondence from the City Attorney regarding the matter. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that staff had e-mailed the City Attorney with the Planning Commission's concerns and the City Attorney had responded verbally to the staff. Commissioner Mueller noted that the staff report had indicated a need for 25 parking spaces and asked if that would accommodate the recommended maximum number of people allowed at the small gatherings, which was recommended at 75. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that common practice was to calculate the needed parking for churches at three persons per car. Commissioner Duran Reed asked about the 65 decibel limit suggested by staff and if that was for the entire property. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the 65 decibel limit was currently in effect at the outdoor amphitheatre. He stated that staff was suggesting taking that decibel limit and applying it any uses at the Visitor's Center, making it consistent throughout the entire property. Commissioner Tomblin felt it might be prudent to add to condition no. 9 that there not be any amplified music by electronic equipment that would include tapes and cds. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it would at the Commission's prerogative Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 2 Commissioner Lyon did not think it was necessary to put a limitation on amplification of live entertainment that would preclude a speaker from using a microphone Further, he thought that requiring all of the doors of the Visitor's Center to remain closed was an over -regulation He felt that Condition No 10, limiting the emanation of sound from the Visitor's Center, was adequate to cover the noise issues. He therefore suggested deleting Condition No. 9. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staffs intent was to limit bands playing live music, karaoke, and similar types of amplification. He stated that it was not staff's intent to limit speakers that may need some type of amplification to be heard. Commissioner Lyon did not see a problem with live amplification inside the building as long as the noise outside the building did not exceed 65 decibels Associate Planner Blumenthal responded that staff would not have an issue if the Planning Commission chose to delete Condition No. 9. Commissioner Duran Reed felt that if the Planning Commission left the second sentence of Condition No. 9, it would be contrary to a Planning Commission decision of October 22, 2002 on the Pilates Studio. She noted that the Planning Commission had determined the doors could remain open at the Pilates Studio and that there could not be any noise over 65 decibels emanating from the studio. Chairman Cartwright stated that one of the reasons the Planning Commission asked this item be continued was because they had been informed the City Attorney had reviewed the prior staff report and was in support of the condition that would forbid weddings and other religious ceremonies. Because of the discussion that ensued, the Planning Commission had felt it would be wise for the City Attorney to re -look at this condition. He felt that the Planning Commission was expecting a written response from the City Attorney explaining her thinking on the subject. He asked that in the future when the Planning Commission asked for an interpretation from the City Attorney, that the City Attorney submit a written response to the Planning Commission. Commissioners Cote and Mueller agreed with the Chairman's comments and concerns regarding the need for written response from the City Attorney Director/Secretary Rojas stated that his understanding was the direction of the Planning Commission was to consult with the City Attorney about the subject, and he apologized for misunderstanding the direction to get a written response He clarified that the City Attorney felt that the Planning Commission could regulate weddings at the site. She felt that weddings could be regulated as long as that regulation was backed up by facts, such as weddings create noise or traffic She felt that to try to avoid a claim by the applicant that the City was targeting weddings or religious events, the Planning Commission should regulate the crux of the issue, be it noise or traffic or whatever the issue He explained that the City Attorney therefore felt the Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 3 Planning Commission should focus on setting limits on the number of events or the number of people who could attend such events Chairman Cartwright opened the public hear ng. Reverend Tafel 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South (applicant) stated he was satisfied with what was suggested in the staff report He did agree that it would be difficult to conduct meetings inside with the doors closed because of the ventilation. Commissioner Mueller stated that he did not see any mention of air conditioning in the staff report, and asked if there was air conditioning provided in the building Reverend Tafel answered that the building was air conditioned, however there have been many days where it has been preferable to have the building manually ventilated Commissioner Mueller asked if there was any objection to restricting amplified sound to speakers and not allow amplified music He asked if that was consistent with the idea that the facility might be used for a wedding reception Reverend Tafel had no objections Commissioner Mueller questioned extending the hours of operation and asked Reverend Tafel if he felt people would leave immediately after the event, or if he felt people may linger later than 10.00 Reverend Tafel did not know, as he has had no experience with these type of operating hours Commissioner Mueller asked why the request was submitted for later hours at the site, especially at the chapel Reverend Tafel answered that it was requested so that if there were two events scheduled, one could end at 9 00 and another event could end at 10 00 Commissioner Duran Reed asked how many gatherings per day Reverend Tafel envisioned. Reverend Tafel answered that the site was truly a visitor's center and is its main function. He noted that the Board of Managers of the Wayfarer's Chapel has said that there shall be no weddings or receptions in the Visitor's Center. What he was envisioning was an event in the evening, possibly a community gathering or meeting Commissioner Duran Reed asked Reverend Tafel if he had any objections to the Planning Commission limiting the number of gatherings allowed at the Visitor's Center. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 4 Reverend Tafel felt there could be as many as four gatherings per day, but did not see a reason to limit the number of gatherings allowed Commissioner Tomblin asked if the Board of Governors of the Wayfarer's Chapel passed a resolution that said they would not use the building for weddings or receptions, could the Planning Commission use that resolution as part of the conditions of approval. Director/Secretary Rous felt that if the Planning Commission and the applicant are in agreement that there will be no weddings in the Visitor's Center, there is no issue and the condition can remain in the approval Commissioner Cote asked Reverend Tafel if the make-up of the Board of Managers were to change, could they then change their stand and state that they would allow weddings and receptions at the Visitor's Center. Reverend Tafel answered that the Board could change their position, and noted that policies do change over the years. Dean Andrews 1064 Upland Ave, San Pedro stated that he was the architect for the project and was available to answer any questions from the Commission. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Andrews if it was his understanding that there would be no weddings or receptions at the Visitor's Center Mr Andrews answered that it was his understanding there would be no weddings or receptions at the Visitor's Center. Mr Andrews explained that one of the changes that would occur as a result of the potential approval of the project, was the building would become one of a mixed occupancy use according to the Uniform Building Code He noted that once a building is approved to have meetings over 50 people it is considered an assembly occupancy and the building code requires modifications to the structure. He stated that if the Planning Commission limits the occupancy to 49 people he would not have a change of occupancy according to the Building Code, and would not have to make modifications to the structure. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if a maximum occupancy of 49 would still require the applicant to conform to the Uniform Building Code requirements of emergency egress Mr. Andrews explained that with a maximum occupancy of 49 there would be no required modifications, as the building currently meets the requirements. Director/Secretary Rojas added that with a maximum occupancy of 49 there would no longer be the requirement to submit an exiting plan to the City. Chairman Cartwright closed the public heaftg. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner Tomblin discussed the occupancy and felt it might be better to limit the occupancy to forty-nine, mainly because of the parking. He was comfortable with limiting the events to one a day. Commissioner Duran Reed suggested limiting the maximum occupancy to 49 people, which would eliminate the need for Condition No. 6. Regarding amplification of music, she felt that Condition No. 9 should simply read there shall be no amplified music within the Vistior's Center. She felt that the condition to keep the doors closed should be deleted to make it consistent with the decision made for the Pilates Studio. Lastly, she noted that if the Commission decides on a maximum occupancy of something over 49 people, then the emergency exiting plan be submitted to the City at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the first event, so that the Wayfarer's Chapel has the time to implement the exiting plan She felt that there should be a limit of a maximum of two events per day allowed at the center. Commissioner Mueller noted that the applicant did not appear to have an objection to prohibiting weddings and wedding receptions in the Visitor's Center. He felt that excluding these uses from the Visitor's Center would serve to limit the commercialization of the site by restricting the number of locations where those types of events could take place. As for the number of people allowed in the Visitor's Center, he felt that 25 parking spaces could better accommodate 50 people going to meetings with typically 1 or 2 people per vehicle He stated that he wanted to make the facility available to the community so he was not inclined to limit the number of meetings per day in the Visitor's Center. He also suggested that "no amplified music in the Visitor's Center" be inserted in place of condition 9 and thought that the 65 decibels sound limit in condition 10 was sufficient t limit the amount of noise emanating from the property. Commissioner Cote noted that in revising the language, it was specifically being recommended to use the words "small gatherings". In looking at the parking available, she envisioned a small gathering at the Visitor's Center to be 50 people or less She therefore supported limiting the number of people not to exceed 49 She supported the modifications previously recommended with respect to Condition No. 9 to change the language to specify no amplified music Regarding limiting the number of events or gatherings, she did not see a need to limit the number to allow the Reverend some flexibility, and allow some community events to be held at the Visitor's Center She stated that rather than look at the chapel as a quasi - commercial endeavor, she would rather look at it as an opportunity as an additional site for community events to be held. Chairman Cartwright stated that he was satisfied that there was no intention of having weddings or receptions at the Visitor's Center. He stated that his original concern with parking was with the number of cars and doors that would be opening and closing and the concern about the noise. Therefore, it didn't matter how many parking spaces were involved, there would still be quite a bit of noise. He stated that limiting the noise level to 65 decibels takes care of his concerns regarding the cars He noted that there was a recommendation for a six-month review, at which time the Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 6 Planning Commission could review the parking, the noise, and the number of gatherings. He stated that he could see how there could possibly be four gatherings at the Visitor's Center in one day, and was satisfied that would not be a problem Regarding occupancy, he preferred to see it set at 75 people which would take care of any growth that may occur Discussing amplified music, he stated that he understood the concerns of the other Commissioners, however he noted that it was common practice to use audio -video equipment at meetings. He felt the condition would make it very difficult for the applicant to use the center. He felt the condition requiring noise no louder than 65 decibels at the property line would satisfy any noise issues, rather than the Planning Commission determining what type of noise would be allowed Therefore, he recommended that the Planning Commission not be too restrictive, and reminded them there would be a six-month review He supported Commissioner Duran Reed's suggestion for Condition No. 9 regarding allowing the door to be open during operating hours. Commissioner Lyon moved to accept the language prepared by the staff with the exception to delete Condition No. 9, seconded by Chairman Cartwright. Commissioner Duran Reed asked to amend the motion to change the mardmum number of occupants to not exceed 49 persons, delete Condition No. 6, and change the language of Condition No. 9 to read "7here shall be no amplified music within the Visitor's Center." The second sentence would be deleted, and the third sentence would state that there shall be no outdoor amplification by the Visitor's Center. Further, the number of (events would be limited to two per day. Commissioner Lyon did not accept the amendments to his motion Commissioner Mueller suggested amending the motion to read that the maximum occupancy would not exceed 50 so that condition no. 6 would be retained, as he felt it was important for the City to review an (emergency exiting plan. He suggested changing the first sentence, of Condition No. 9 to state "No amplified music within the Visitor's Center", deleting the second sentence of the condition, and retaining the last sentence of the condition. Commissioner Lyon did not agree to the amendment to his motion. Commissioner Duran Reed suggested an amendment that W Condition Mo. 6 is to be retained, she asked that the plans be submitted 30 days prior to conducting the first seminar, which would aftyj the chapel to implement its plan. Commissioner Lyon accepted that amendment The motion failed on a vote of 2-4, with Commissioners Cots, Duran Reed, Mueller and Tomblin dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-29, thereby approving the project as suggested by staff with the following amendments: 1) An exiting plan must be submitted 30 days prior to the first event, 2) The maximum occupancy is not to exceed 50 people, 3) Condition No. 9 would be changed to state that there shall be no amplified music within the Visitor's Center, the second sentence would be removed, and the third sentence would be retained. Seconded by Commissioner Cote. Commissioner Duran Reed asked Commissioner Mueller to amend his motion to limit the number of events to two per day. Commissioner Mueller did not accept the amendment. Commissioner Tomblin asked Commissioner Mueller why he chose the occupancy at 50 rather than 49. Commissioner Mueller explained that he chose 50 because he felt that being a public facility, the Planning Commission should require some type of emergency exiting plan He also felt that at the six-month review it would be easier to change the occupancy number to a higher number, since the exiting plan would already be completed Commissioner Duran Reed agreed with Commissioner Mueller, and felt that safety should be foremost Commissioner Tomblin felt that the building was currently very easy to exit and he was uncomfortable making the applicant go through the expense to change the exiting if it wasn't going to be necessary. Chairman Cartwright asked if the intention of the Planning Commission was to restrict all audio -video activities at the Visitor's Center, including music from movies. Commissioner Mueller responded that his intent was not to limit audio-visual, but to limit amplified music, such as music from live bands Commissioner Lyon suggested no amplified music for entertainment purposes The Planning Commission agreed. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing. Commissioner Lyon asked Reverend Tafel if reducing the maximum occupancy from 75 down to 49 or 50 would pose any undue hardship or pose a significant problem to the applicant Reverend Tafel answered that he would like to stay at a higher number, as he was not yet sure how the center would be used He did not want to restrict the occupancy to a lower number not knowing what may happen in the future He stated that he could live with the lower number, but would prefer the higher number. He added that Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 8 he preferred the language regarding amplified music which stated that no amplified music for entertainment purposes would be allowed He felt that any other language would severely handicaps the use of the site. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Duran Reed suggested an amendment to the motion that there shall be no amplified or live music for entertainment purposes. Commissioner Mueller accepted the amendment to his motion Commissioner Lyon asked to amend the motion to change the maximum occupancy from 50 to 49 persons. Commissioner Mueller did not accept the amendment to the motion The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2002-29 as amended passed, (6-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 35 p m the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:45 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT) 3. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2002-00193): 2156 Tendon Drive Assistant Planner Ruckert presented the staff report He briefly described the proposed project and explained that staff could not make two of the nine required findings for the height variation He explained that staff did not feel the proposed addition was situated in such a manner as to minimize view impairments and felt there were other options available to the applicant Staff also determined that there will be significant cumulative view impairment with the proposed addition. With that, staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice, the proposed height variation. He distributed a photo board for the Planning Commission to view. Commissioner Tomblin asked for clarification on cumulative view impact. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that it was a finding that must be made, however most applications do not raise an issue with cumulative view impacts. However, there are certain neighborhoods, this being one of them, that because of the way they were originally developed, staff must look at the impact of the house itself as well as what would happen if other adjacent homes were to add second story additions Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 9 Chairman Cartwright asked if the other two-story homes in the neighborhood were done with height variations. Assistant Planner Luckert answered that the two-story homes were part of the original building construction in the 1950's, or had second story additions added before the City incorporated. Commissioner Cote stated that she had not been able to visit the subject site or the surrounding homes, and stated that she would participate in the discussion and if she felt she could not make a decision on the project, would recuse herself from the vote. Chairman Cartwright asked staff what they felt some of the applicant's options were to allow staff to make the necessary findings for the height variation Assistant Planner Luckert answered that one option was to lower the ridgellne, another option was to change the pitch of the roof, and another option was to narrow the proposed addition Chairman Cartwright asked what the proposed height of the ceiling was Assistant Planner Luckert answered that it was not scaled on the plans and he would have to scale it to get an answer. Chairman Cartwright asked if the options had been proposed to the applicant, and if so, what response did staff get. Assistant Planner Luckert responded that staff had proposed many options to the applicant and the applicant had first wanted to take the proposed project before the Planning Commission. Chairman Cartwright asked how much lower staff felt the addition should be Assistant Planner Luckert answered that staff would have to go to the site and re- evaluate the silhouette. Chairman Cartwright opened the public heaftg. Dennis Sevilla 2156 Mendon Drive (applicant) explained that his architect has re- designed the proposed project slightly to lower the height of the roof He distributed a revised plan to the Planning Commission He explained that he did not want to have problems with his neighbors and was willing to do anything he could to help reduce any problems. He also stated that he would be willing to do anything the Planning Commission might suggest so as to get his height variation approved. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Sevilla how much he was proposing to lower the ridgeline of the addition Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 10 Mr. Sevilla answered that he was not sure, but his architect was present and could answer the question. Ronny Lem 2156 Mendon Drive stated he was the architect for the project He explained that he had reduced the height of the proposed second story addition by designing a flat roof so that the ridgeline measures 19 feet in height. Chairman Cartwright asked if staff had reviewed these proposed changes. Mr Levy answered that staff had not yet seen the proposed changes. Commissioner Mueller noted that staff had recommended narrowing the size of the addition and reducing the size of the addition, and asked Mr. Levy if he considered either of those options in the re -design. Mr. Levy answered that he had only considered modifying the height of the addition. He did not see how narrowing the addition would help the issues. Commissioner Mueller asked what the function of the two windows in the back of the home on the second story addition would be. Mr. Levy answered that at the back of the home there was a small laundry room with a window overlooking the backyard and a corner office/bedroom with a window overlooking the yard. He stated that if it would satisfy the neighbors he could easily modify the two windows Becky Anderson 2227 Sparta Drive stated that she has a very broad range view from her home, which is downtown Los Angeles to the harbor. She stated her issue was not that she did not want to see someone improve their property, but rather this particular house sits where she gets her only view of the harbor and water. Therefore, this view is extremely important as she does not have any other water view that she can give up. She stated that there are no two-story homes that are currently in her view and she was concerned that if this home were allowed to go up to a second story, others in the neighborhood would also begin to build up and her view would be greatly affected. She noted that the present ridgeline of the subject home sites right where her water view begins, therefore even if the applicant were to lower the proposed ridgeline she will still lose all of her water view. Chairman Cartwright noted that there is a large pine tree that is adjacent to the applicant's home that he felt blocks a significant amount of a view and asked if the proposed structure were to be built at nineteen feet, and the tree were removed, what impact that might have on Ms Anderson's view. Ms. Anderson responded that it was very difficult to answer, as she does not know what view would be behind that tree. Mario Juravich 28738 Enrose Avenue stated that his view is of downtown Los Angeles and the city lights He explained that the proposed addition would be Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 11 exactly in front of the cluster of downtown buildings and would completely block that view He felt that there was no doubt that if the Planning Commission allowed this second story addition to be built, that many others would follow and his entire view would be blocked. He therefore urged the Planning Commission to accept the staffs recommendation of denial of the project Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Juravich if he has had the opportunity to talk with the applicant about his project. Mr. Juravich responded that he has never talked to the applicant regarding his project. Commissioner Tomblin asked the applicant about the palm trees and junipers that he identified on the photo board and asked where they were in relationship to his property. Mr. Sevilla answered that the palm tree was at his driveway, and the others were located near the back. He stated that he would be willing to cut all of the trees on his property if that would help give his neighbors a better view. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Sevilla to respond to his neighbors concerns regarding the impact of his addition to their views. Mr. Sevilla responded that it was difficult for him to judge his neighbors. He noted that many of the neighbors have a 180 -degree view from downtown Los Angeles to Catalina Island He explained that he was not proposing to build a second story addition to gain a view, but rather he has the need for a larger living space and he can only go up Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr Sevilla if he would ever consider taking out the swimming pool in his front area to make room for an addition to the house. Mr Sevilla answered that he would consider that, however there have been many people who have told him that would be a mistake, as the house would lose value without the swimming pool. Chairman Cartwright asked staff about the revised plan that was submitted and noted that it showed an addition of approximately four feet lower. He asked what bearing this lower addition would have on staff's recommendation of denial Assistant Planner Luckert could not be sure, especially regarding the cumulative impact, without analyzing a new silhouette Chairman Cartwright felt it might be prudent to have the property re -silhouetted to match the new plan so that the neighbors, staff, and the Planning Commission could evaluate the impacts 1111111111 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Mueller noted that Mrs. Anderson had discussed her view of the water as her only water view and asked staff if this was not a significant view. Assistant Planner Luckert answered that staff felt that the impact was not significant, given her wide range of view Commissioner Mueller asked if, in a height variation application, the applicant is required to comply with view restoration guidelines, which would mean the foliage on the property could only go up to the highest ridgeline of the property He asked, if staff were to recommend approval, what height the foliage would be required to be cut to Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the foliage would be cut to 16 feet or the ridgeline, whichever is lower, providing the foliage is impairing a view. Commissioner Mueller asked, if the project were to go forward, would the foliage be required to be trimmed to 16 feet or the height of the ridgeline Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the foliage would be required to be trimmed Chairman Cartwright stated that he did not really understand the scope of the new proposal submitted and felt that a new silhouette would help the neighbors and the City understand the proposal. Director/Secretary Rojas added that staff will not only have to visit the site to assess the new view, but also whether a flat roof fits into the neighborhood Commissioner Mueller was very concerned with the cumulative view impact of the project and was reluctant to continue the Item with the idea that the new proposal does somehow solve the cumulative view issue Chairman Cartwright understood the concerns with the cumulative view impacts, however he did not want to deny the project without giving the applicant an opportunity to present the new proposal. Commissioner Lyon agreed that continuing the item made sense He briefly discussed the project and stated that he did not have a problem with the cumulative view impact, as he did not think that every house in the cul-de-sac would put up a second story addition, and even if they did he would agree there is no significant view impairment. He felt that some type of compromise should be reached and the new silhouette would be a step in that direction. He also felt that once the trees were trimmed the neighbors would be getting more view back than they would be losing with the addition Commissioner Tomblin also supported the continuance, as he was a little confused with the cumulative view situation Planning Commission Minutes (November 12, 2002 Page 13 Commissioner Duran Reed stated that, as had been discussed and agreed to by the City Attorney and the Planning Director in a prior Planning Commission meeting, a view could be taken in several parts rather than as a whole. She noted that the view of the water was small when compared to the entire view available at 2227 Sparta Drive, however it was the only water view available and therefore she considered that significant She could not tell if the lowered ridgeline would preserve the water view and supported the continuance so that everyone could view the new silhouette. She suggested the applicant discuss with his architect the possibility of an addition on the first floor where the swimming pool is currently located. Commissioner Mueller stated that his main concern was the cumulative view impact He noted that there were many two-story homes in the neighborhood which were done before the City incorporated. However, he looks at the homes in the neighborhood that aren't two-story and the possibility that they may in the future want to add a second story. Commissioner Cote stated that she had not been able to visit the site during daylight hours She felt that it was very important for the Planning Commissioners to understand both the view impact and the cumulative view impact She noted that this project has been under review with the City for a number of months and was disappointed that the applicant presented a new plan to the City at this meeting. She stated that she would prefer to have the revisions submitted to the staff prior to the meeting, as the continuance would now mean that the neighbors and interested parties will have to come back to another Planning Commission meeting. She supported the continuance as it would help her and the neighbors envision the impacts to the properties. Commissioner Lyon moved to continue the Kern to the meeting of November 26, 2002 to give the applicant time to revise the silhouette and the staff to re- assess the findings, seconded by Comm6zsioner Tombfln. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that in order for this item to be presented at the next meeting the silhouette would have to be revised by the weekend Chairman Cartwright re -opened the pubft hearing. Chairman Cartwright asked the applicant if he felt he could modify his silhouette by the weekend Mr. Sevilla felt he could have the silhouette revised by the weekend. Chairman Cartwright closed the public bearing. The item was continued to the meeting of November 26, 2002, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZOM2002-00i5j)- 26147 Basswood Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 14 Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He briefly reviewed the project and stated that staff has determined that due to the layout of the tract and the topography of the area, there is no view impairment caused by the proposed structure He noted that staff had received a letter from the property owner at 26153 Basswood Avenue stating concern that the project will have an impact on the views from their home Accordingly, staff went to the site to determine if there was potential view impairment from the living room and bedroom. Staff determined that the best and most import view was from the living room and therefore did the analysis from that room After examining this view, staff noted that the proposed addition was not visible from the living room and therefore determined that there was no view impairment caused by the proposed project He distributed a photo board to the Planning Commission showing pictures from the neighbor's living room and bedroom as well as photos of the silhouette. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he noted a correction to the staff report in the square footage of the proposed size of the house He concluded by saying that staff was recommending approval of the height variation subject to the recommended conditions of approval Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearong. Quemars Sadeghi 26147 Basswood Ave (applicant) stated that he originally considered a single story addition, but realized that a two-story addition made more sense for his family. He explained that a two-story home would give him more open space, more room for his family, the front of the house would be open for safety reasons, a bigger house would comply with the latest building and safety codes, and would improve the property and maximize the property values. He stated that he showed all of the neighbors his plans and all neighbors support the plan except the neighbor at 26153 Basswood Avenue He stated that after review of the neighbor's concerns he adjusted the design and reduced the size of the addition. He requested that the Planning Commission approve his project. Carl Harberger 19844 Friar Street, Woodland Hills, stated he was the designer of the project. He explained that there were several two-story homes in the neighborhood and he tried to design the addition as sensitively as possible to meet the Sadeghi's requirements, satisfy the requirements of the City, and satisfy the concerns of the neighbors. He explained that he increased the required five-foot setback and manipulating the massing of the building so that most of the massing was at the rear of the building. Rollin Sturgeon 5456 Bayridge Road explained that when the City received its charter there were 18 policies, three of which this proposed structure was contrary to He stated that those policies were to preserve the rural and open character of the City, to continue to maintain the existing variety of housing types, and to initiate strong code enforcement. He did not feel this proposed addition would be, in any way, compatible with the neighborhood. He noted that the neighborhood was almost entirely single story with very few exceptions that were built prior to compatibility requirements. He felt the addition was too massive and too big for the neighborhood Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 15 Chairman Cartwright closed the public heari ng. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if the two-story additions at 26203 Basswood and 26139 Basswood were done after the City incorporated. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that he did not know if they were done prior to incorporation, however they were done prior to Proposition M. Commissioner Cote stated that she was able to go to the home at 26163 Basswood and agreed with the staff report with respect to the most important viewing area being from the living room, and did not see any view impact from that room from the proposed addition. She explained that initially she had been concerned with neighborhood compatibility and the size of the proposed addition, however because this home is at a lower elevation that the surrounding homes it does not give the appearance of being a much larger home relative to the others Commissioner Tomblin felt that this proposed addition was less than what the neighbors had previously done and could see no view issues He felt the architectural design of the home helped reduce the mass and as long as the home was going to built based on the design presented, he supported staff's recommendations. Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she too had visited the neighbor's home and agreed that there was no view impairment from the living room except for a palm tree on the applicant's property that is in the middle of their view She wondered if the applicant would be willing to remove the tree Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that the tree is a Sago Palm and is not on the applicant's property, but rather on property that is between the canyon and the applicant's rear property line which is owned by another property owner. Commissioner Duran Reed agreed that the design was such that the addition will not look too bulky or massive, but was concerned with the square footage. She noted that the applicant's property would be almost 100 percent larger than the average home in the neighborhood, which concerned her as most of the homes in the neighborhood were single story, ranch style homes She therefore could not make the finding concerning compatibility. Commissioner dueller also agreed that there was no view impairment from the neighbor's home. He agreed that the lots were terraced and because this lot was lower a house of this size could fit within the neighborhood, therefore he was not concerned with neighborhood compatibility. Chairman Cartwright sympathized with the neighbor's concerns regarding their view, but agreed that there was no view impairment from the living room He felt the proposed home was designed in such a manner that it fit in very well with the neighborhood He noted that the home would be much larger than the others in the Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 16 neighborhood, but did not think square footage was a good measure of the mass and bulk of a home. Commissioner Lyon moved to adopt P.C. Resa0uUon No. 2002-30 thereby approving the height variation as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (5-1) wfth Comrnssloner Duran Reed dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10 30 p m the Planning Commission took a short recess until 10.40 p.m. at which time they reconvened. 01 __J 4 Lem 0 1 WU 4. Variance, Height Variation, and Site Man Review Permit (Case No. ZON2002-00361)- 4372 Admirable ®ride Commissioner Tomblin noted that he was in the process of contacting Olympia Greer, the architect for this project, to possibly do an addition at his home. He did not feel this was a conflict, just that there was a potential business relationship. Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She briefly described the scope of the project and the request to permit the existing non -permitted construction She noted that the non -permitted construction as well as the proposed second story addition are proposed within the required side yard setback and therefore a Variance is requested She stated that staff felt the findings could be made to support the Variance request to allow the non -permitted construction to remain in its present location, however the Variance findings could not be made for the proposed second story addition to be constructed in the required side yard setback. When analyzing the neighborhood compatibility for the height variation, staff determined that the addition was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. However, in the past, the Planning Commission has asked staff to broaden the scope of neighborhood compatibility analysis for an addition in the Seaview Tract. Therefore, staff was asking for direction on whether this application also warrants a broader scope of analysis. She stated that staff was asking the Planning Commission to give staff and the applicant direction as to whether to broaden the scope of the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Commissioner Cote asked for some background on why the Planning Commission had, in the past, asked for a broader neighborhood compatibility analysis for this tract Assistant Planner Yu explained that in a past application in the Seaview Tract the Planning Commission found there were other homes in the tract, not within the 10 closest homes to the applicant's that were larger in scale and more compatible with what the previous applicants were proposing At that time, the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 17 had directed staff to look at the square footages and architectural styles of a broader set of homes within the tract. Chairman Cartwright added that the Planning Commission has the latitude to extend the number of homes used in the analysis as they see fit. He noted that it is not done very often, but was done recently in the Seaview area. He asked staff why they were suggesting the possibility of expanding the neighborhood compatibility analysis for this project. Director/Secretary Rajas responded that in terms of square footage, this proposal is substantially larger than the average of the immediate neighborhood. However, because the Planning Commission has had discussions on what constitutes the neighborhood in this tract, staff was unclear and was seeking direction as to whether the direction to broaden the scope of the neighborhood compatibility analysis was solely for the past particular project or for all projects in the Seaview Tract Commissioner Tomblin noted that there is a tremendous amount of construction going on in the tract and asked if this new construction was included in the neighborhood analysis Assistant Planner Yu answered that most of the new construction was for single story additions that did not require height variations Chairman Cartwright questioned the unpermitted construction and asked for clarification Assistant Planner Yu explained that there are old county permits in the file for past work, however she did not encounter any permits for the work in question. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearrMg. Olympia Greer 267 Palos Verdes Drive West, Palos Verdes Estates stated that she was the architect for the project She presented a rendering of the proposed project and explained the style she was proposing for the home. She displayed examples of the materials she was proposing for the residence and noted the subdued colors Discussing the mass of the structure, she noted that the lot has a very narrow street frontage and fans out as the lot goes back towards the hillside. She explained that she had designed hip roofs with low pitch to reduce the building height and used several architectural features to break the two-story wall and bulk and mass of the structure. However, as a result of staff's concerns, she presented a revised plan which inset the second floor by one foot on each side and by a foot and a half in the front, lowered the entry roof by three feet, and reduced the second floor by 80 square feet She noted that the lot is very large and the house is disproportionately small, and did not have a dining room. She explained that the applicant's addition was not extravagant, just asking for adequate space. She asked the Planning Commission to approve the project as revised. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2402 Page 18 Commissioner Duran Reed noted that a neighbor had suggested there would be view impact to her home and asked Ms. Greer if she had the opportunity to look at the proposed project from the neighbor's home. Ms Greer answered that she had not visited the neighbor's home, however the applicant had visited the neighbor's home. Commissioner Cote asked staff if they had any issues with the newly submitted plan Director/Secretary Rojas answered that staff has not yet reviewed the plan Glen Streeter 4372 Admirable Drive (applicant) stated that when he purchased the home it was four bedrooms and four bathrooms He noted that the addition would not add any additional bedrooms or bathrooms. He explained that his lot is much bigger than the other lots in the tract, two to three times bigger than some He stated that he has looked extensively throughout the peninsula to buy something else, but he has not found anything that has a comparable view with the large lot size. He stated that he has received many letters of support from his neighbors and distributed photographs he had taken from his property. Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Streeter if he had gone to the property at 4348 Exultant Drive to view any impacts from his addition Mr. Streeter answered that he did go to the property at 4348 Exultant Drive and felt there was absolutely no impact to the property. Commissioner Cote asked Mr. Streeter for some background on the non -permitted construction. Mr. Streeter explained that the addition is on the back of the house, consisting of a bedroom, bathroom, storage room, and sauna were existing when he bought the property, and were included on the sales brochure available at the time. He stated that he was responsible for the greenhouse and other construction in the back. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Streeter if, considering the large size of the lot, he had considered expanding out with a single story rather than expanding up. Mr Streeter answered that he had .considered a single story addition, however because of the way the existing house is situated on the lot he would have to either remove the swimming pool or lose a large portion of his backyard, which he felt was a major attraction for his property He did not feel that adding a second story obstructed any views from neighboring properties Commissioner Mueller asked, when showing the plans to the neighbors on Exultant Drive, if any of the three objected other than the neighbor at 4348 Exultant Drive. Mr. Streeter answered that the owner of 4348 Exultant Drive had not moved into her house at the time he was speaking to the neighbors about the plan He stated that Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 19 the other neighbors on Exultant Drive have no objection to the proposal. He added that there was one woman at 4354 Exultant who did not sign his paper, but indicated that she had intentions of signing it. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Streeter if he went into the house at 4354 Exultant and looked at the view from her home. Mr Streeter responded that he had been in her home to look at the view. Frank Kostrencich 4353 Admirable Drive stated he was in favor of the project and any kind of improvements made to the properties in the Sea View tract could only help increase property values. He did not feel mass was an issue, and added that he looks directly at the home every day He appreciated that the applicant had situated the addition to the rear of the property so that it is very architecturally and visually appealing. Greg Olton 4364 Admirable Drive stated that he supported the project and felt it would be an asset to the community Eva Albuia 4348 Exultant Drive stated that she supports construction, however she felt that it should be done in a tasteful manner. She noted three homes in the area that are currently expanding because they have large families, however they are remaining single -story homes. She objected to the size of the proposed project as well as the second story. She stated that she has a view of the ocean and the hills and paid extra money for that view and felt that the proposed addition would take away her view of the cliffs She also felt this proposed addition would look down onto her lot and create a loss of privacy, as they would be able to look down into her yard. Commissioner Cote asked Ms. Albuja to clarify her concerns with privacy. Ms Albuja explained that currently her neighbors could not see her property, but as soon as the second story was built they would be able to look into her yard, which she felt was a loss of privacy. Commissioner Cote asked Ms Albuja what the distance was between her property and the applicants. Ms. Albuja did not know Chairman Cartwright estimated that the property was at least 1,000 feet away Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Streeter if the Homeowner's Association has taken a position on his project. Mr Streeter answered that the president of the homeowner's association has written a letter to the Planning Commission recommending that the addition be approved, however it was a personal opinion as his proposed addition never came up for a vote at the homeowner's association Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 20 Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Streeter to respond to Ms Albuja's concerns Mr Streeter stated that he was required to get signatures of neighbors within a 500 - foot radius, her home was just inside that 500 -foot radius. Regarding privacy, he noted that the addition would have windows on that side of the house, which were bathroom windows. He explained that these bathroom windows would be opaque or textured type windows that one cannot see out of. Another window will be a staircase window that will be too high for anyone to look out of The only window that he could look out of would be the den window, but he did not feel there was any privacy issue in any way He did not think that there was any loss of view for Ms Albuja because of his addition Chairman Cartwright closed the public haaftg. Chairman Cartwright began by asking the Planning Commission about the Variance for the 675 square foot non -permitted addition and view house. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to approve the Variance for the 675 square foot non -permitted addition and view house. Chairman Cartwright then asked the Planning Commission about the two existing trellises as well as the two proposed trellises The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to approve the two existing and two proposed trellises. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if the proposed revision now eliminated the need for the Variance for the second story addition Director/Secretary Rojas confirmed that the revision now eliminated the need for the Variance for the second story addition Chairman Cartwright asked the Planning Commission their views on neighborhood compatibility of the project Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she looked at the size of the property in comparison to the size of the addition, and found that the property is very unique She noted that it is in an almost hidden cul-de-sac and the homes on either side of the property are terraced She felt that because of the unique size of the lot and location of the lot that building a second story would not seem incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood, therefore she did not have an issue with neighborhood compatibility. She did not think it was necessary to judge neighborhood compatibility beyond the ten closest homes. She felt there might be a view impairment to Ms. Albuja's home, however she did not think it was a significant view impairment She did not think there was a privacy issue, as the houses were quite far apart. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he had no problems with neighborhood compatibility and supported approving the project. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 21 Commissioner Mueller was concerned about the views from 4354 Exultant Drive, and explained that the owner of the property had expressed concerns that the addition would block her view of the coastline. Assistant Planner Yu stated that staff had visited the property but was not able to determine if the coastline was being blocked by the silhouette. However staff did determine the owner had a view of the ocean and Catalina Island, and any view impairment was minor Commissioner Mueller felt that there was quite a bit of foliage blocking the views from the property and it was very hard to tell what views were being blocked. Commissioner Mueller discussed neighborhood compatibility and noted that there were very few two-story homes in the neighborhood and the proposed project was more than twice the size of the average of the ten closest homes. Therefore, he felt it was hard to conclude that this project was compatible with the immediate neighborhood Commissioner Lyon had no problem with the project and felt that whatever view impairment there is, is extremely minor He felt there was no privacy impact, and that the home was compatible with the neighborhood. He felt that size was not a problem, as the appearance of the house was more important to him than the square footage. He did not think the house appeared overly large when viewed from the street or any other property. Commissioner Cote did not think the proposed addition would create a significant view impact to any of the neighboring properties. She did not think there was a privacy issue to the neighbor, based on the distance the neighbor was from the applicant Therefore, most of her concerns were regarding neighborhood compatibility and the bulk and size of the home. She noted that this property was very unique in that it was on a cul-de-sac and away from the larger streets in the neighborhood. She explained that she drove to other areas in the neighborhood where there were similar cul-de-sacs with homes next to the hills, and felt these homes were more comparable to the applicant's home than the homes on Admirable and Dauntless Chairman Cartwright agreed that the there was minimal impact on privacy in the neighborhood. He did not think anything the Planning Commission decided regarding this project would set a precedence, as the Planning Commission has both approved and denied height variations in the Seaview area. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, he agreed that one thing consistent about Seaview, it was the inconsistency in the style of the architecture He therefore did not have an issue with neighborhood compatibility with this project Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the cenUre prgectt as amended by the submittal of the revised plans and direct staff to present a ResoWVon at the Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 22 November 26, 2002 meeting, seconded by Commossloner Duran Reed. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Muefler OssenUng. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of October 22, 2002 Commissioner Duran Reed noted that she had e-mailed her suggested corrections to the staff. Commissioner Lyon stated that he had given the Recording Secretary minor grammatical corrections to the minutes Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the mfinutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (5-0-1) wKh Chairman Cartwright abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Chairman Cartwright briefly discussed the need for clarity when the Planning Commission is making Its decisions, and stated that he has become confused lately with all of the amendments made to motions He asked that the Commissioners make a motion, vote on the motion, and then make another motion if needed He understood that there could be the need for minor amendments to motions, but asked that they be kept to a minimum Director/Secretary Rojas reported that the item regarding insurance requirements will be scheduled for the December 10 meeting, as the City Attorney will be available for that meeting Commissioner Duran Reed stated that the City of Malibu has a regulation that requires the City to make a finding that whatever development is being proposed will not have a negative impact on abutting properties, and asked that this be added to the agenda with the insurance issue Commissioner Cote stated that she would be absent from the November 26 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2002 Page 23