Loading...
PC MINS 20040427Approved May 11, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mueller at 7:00 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present. Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Tetreault, Van Wagner, Chairman Mueller Absent Commissioner Karp and Vice Chairman Cote were excused. Also present were Senior Planner Mihranian, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Alvarez, Associate Planner Blumenthal, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Mihranian reported that at the April 20 meeting the City Council extended the Ocean Trails Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 for one year, introduced Ordinance 405 regarding the 16 foot building height, and adopted Urgency Ordinance 406 regarding the amount of square footage allowed on additions in the Landslide Moratorium area. Senior Planner Mihranian distributed several handouts from the recent Monterrey Conference requested by Commissioner Knight and an item of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No 2 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON -AGENDA ITEMS None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Appeal of Grading Permit (Case ZON2003-00425): 49'/4 Rockinghorse Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report explaining that staff has met with the applicant and appellants of this project and believes there may be a solution that will make everyone happy, however the applicant needs more time to prepare the plans and staff needs time to review the plans Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission continue the appeal of the Director's approval to the May 25, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the item to May 25, 2004, seconded by Commissioner Van Wagner. Continued, (5-0). 2. View Restoration Permit No. 161: 7256 and 7264 Berry Hill Drive Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report, explaining the trees at issue are a pine tree and a eucalyptus tree. She noted that a side issue involved concerns with the deck at 7264 Berry Hill Drive, explaining that the deck was permitted when it was built in 1980 and in 2001 the O'Sullivan's initiated a code enforcement case citing that the deck was built without permits. She explained that the code enforcement officer researched the matter and determined that the deck had been permitted, noting however that there was an error made on the building permit in citing the square footage of the deck She explained that the code enforcement case has been closed and there is no nexus between the deck and the view restoration case before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was polled as to who had visited the sites. All Commissioners had visited the sites Commissioner Van Wagner asked if staff felt, therefore, that the deck is not an issue in this application. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that the deck is not an issue and the deck is permitted Commissioner Van Wagner asked staff to explain the privacy issue in this situation Project Coordinator Nelson explained that, per the Guidelines, greater weight is given to protect outdoor privacy versus indoor privacy. She stated that standing in the viewing area on both the applicants' properties, one cannot see into the backyard of the O'Sullivan property or into the house. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if code enforcement staff looked at the height of the deck. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 2 Project Coordinator Nelson answered that she believed that the height of the deck was considered in the code enforcement case. Commissioner Knight asked if, when the tree is removed, the root system is also removed Project Coordinator Nelson explained that the root system is not removed when a tree is removed. Commissioner Tetreault asked if both trees blocked the view from both the applicants' properties. Project Coordinator Nelson answered that both trees block both applicants' views, noting that the eucalyptus tree has less of an impact on the VanKlooster property but it does have an impact. She stated that the recommendation as written would deal with the situation from both properties. She displayed pictures of the view taken from both of the applicants' properties Chairman Mueller opened the public hearing. Allen Young 7256 Berry Hill Drive (applicant) stated that his home had a spectacular view when he purchased his property and was now asking that only the center portion of that view be partially restored. He stated that he is in agreement with the staff recommendations and felt that staff has demonstrated their impartiality and sensitivity to the feelings of the foliage owners and their neighbors, explaining that staff recommendation almost doubles the foliage's maximum height limit over that which is in the guidelines and staff also recommends replacing the Canary Island Pine with two trees. Marc VanKlooster 7264 Berry Hill Drive (applicant) stated that he too strongly supports the staff recommendations in the staff report and Option 2 in the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Mueller noted that Mr. VanKlooster seemed to have a preference for Option 2 and asked if he was encouraging the foliage owner to choose Option 2 in the staff report. Mr VanKlooster stated that he preferred Option 2 to cutting down the tree half way and facing the possibility of the tree dying. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the staff recommendation was to replace the pine with two 24 -inch box trees and that a 24 -inch box tree is not particularly tall. He felt that with the desire for the tree to screen the deck, a 24 -inch box tree may have difficulty doing that job and a larger tree might do a better job of screening the deck, and asked Mr. VanKlooster his opinion Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 3 Mr. VanKlooster had no objection to a larger tree and was flexible to what was planted as a replacement for the pine. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. VanKlooster if he was open to either option for the Eucalyptus tree. Mr. VanKlooster answered that the Eucalyptus tree created a greater impact to the Youngs and he would defer to the Youngs. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. VanKlooster if the Eucalyptus tree impairs the view from his home. Mr. VanKlooster answered that the Eucalyptus tree is in the corner of his view, but is not a substantial obstruction to his view Chairman Mueller asked Mr. VanKlooster If it would be possible for him to plant foliage on his property that would help screen the deck from the properties below. Mr. VanKlooster answered that he would be open to that suggestion Barbara O'Sullivan 30466 Via Cambron (foliage owner) stated that the Planning Commissioners know the Ordinance much better than she, and noted that within the parameters of the Ordinance there are provisions that protect the foliage owner from being disproportionately and adversely affected by removal of foliage from their property. She felt she, as the foliage owner, was being asked to give all and being given nothing in return, as she was being asked to remove her pine tree to improve the applicants' view. She stated that the 40 -year-old pine tree is an important part of her landscaping and provides some softening of the impact of the 65 -foot wide deck that projects out over the slope. She stated that the deck is an overwhelming site as one approaches her home and the pine tree provides screening for the entire cul-de-sac from the impact of the deck and the largely unlandscaped slopes adjacent to her front yard and entry. She stated that the neighborhood has already lost 18 pine trees to improve the views from the Berry Hill neighborhood and this has changed the neighborhood environment She stated that if her tree is removed the two 24 inch box trees will do little to mitigate the visual impact of the deck She stated that views are not just of the ocean and Catalina Island, but also of the surrounding slopes and landscaping. She concluded by stating that on two counts - the integrity of the landscaping on her own property and the affect of the total environment of the neighborhood — she asked the Planning Commission to revisit the recommendation and give it the test of balance of the rights of the foliage owner and view owner. She stated that her home is overwhelmed by a deck not compatible with the neighborhood, noting that the noise level is palpable when people are on the deck which are daily intrusions on the enjoyment of her home and if the tree comes down the impact of the deck is increased and there does seem to be a nexus between the deck and the tree. Planning Commission Minutes Apni 27, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Knight asked Mrs. O'Sullivan if she had considered what size or type of tree might replace the pine tree. Mrs O'Sullivan answered that it would take a 30 -foot replacement tree to do what this pine tree does Chairman Mueller asked Mrs. O'Sullivan if foliage could be planted on the slope on her property that would screen the deck from her property. Mrs O'Sullivan answered that there is not room on her property to plant foliage that would screen the deck. Chairman Mueller asked Mrs. O'Sullivan to clarify her concern with privacy and if her concern was privacy from the VanKlooster residence or from the entire cul-de-sac Mrs. O'Sullivan explained that the pine tree currently offers privacy to her home from the cul-de-sac and removing the tree will expose her home to the cul-de-sac Mike O'Sullivan 30466 Via Cambron (foliage owner) stated that he has reviewed Proposition M and the View Restoration Guidelines, noting that there are many phrases in both which states there be equity for all sides and the rights of the foliage owners and view owners be balanced. He felt the removal of his tree will violate the stated spirit of the ordinance as it will degrade the character of the neighborhood, diminish neighborhood compatibility and will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and welfare of the Via Cambron neighborhood He noted that many trees have already been removed from the neighborhood have already greatly changed the character of the neighborhood. Ho disagreed with the staff report that there is no nexus between the deck and any view impairment as the View Restoration Guidelines say that replacement foliage shall be reasonably comparable to the foliage removed in terms of function and aesthetics He did not think the staff recommendations would provide neither the screening function nor the aesthetics of the pine tree. He also felt that the VanKlooster deck is illegal, despite. what was determined by the Code Enforcement Officer, and noted that he felt the height is non-compliant. Mr. O'Sullivan stated that he was not unsympathetic to his Berry Hill neighbors and has periodically cut and trimmed his trees to help maintain the neighbors' views. He stated that he has visit both applicant's homes and felt they have breathtaking views, but felt that the views of the Via Cambron neighbors should also be considered. He further asked that the city staff conduct a more thorough investigation to bring the VanKlooster deck into compliance with the building code. He did not see how destroying a 40 year old tree while allow a deck that is so grossly out of compliance furthers the welfare of the community Commissioner Knight asked Mr. O'Sullivan if he was opposed to the trimming of the Eucalyptus tree Mr O'Sullivan explained that he originally planted 8 Eucalyptus trees, of which he now has 3 remaining. He did not think the tree in question impacts the view in any Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 5 significant way and stated that he will tnm, and has always trimmed, the tree to the extent possible without disfiguring the tree Commissioner Knight asked if the staff recommendation to tnm tree no. 3 to 5 feet was acceptable. Mr O'Sullivan felt that was an acceptable recommendation. Dale Levander 30429 Via Cambron stated that the deck is very ugly and anything that can be done to mitigate the deck will be appreciated, noting that the pine tree currently provides mitigation of the deck. He noted that he has a view of Catalina Island, however it is not unobstructed by trees, which he feels adds beauty to that view. He did not feel that a beautiful view of the ocean does not have to be unencumbered. Marian Levander 30429 Via Cambron read a letter from Virginia Leon, who was not able to attend the meeting Ms Leon was concerned that cutting the pine tree would subject the entire Via Cambron neighborhood to the view of the VanKlooster deck, and felt that the growth of a 40 -year-old tree should be revered. Penny Fooks 30457 Via Cambron felt that the View Restoration process is too harsh on the natural environment, noting that a view of the ocean is not necessarily a horizontal line of blue. She hoped that the Planning Commission was here to find a win-win compromise, as there are rights and desires on the parts of all of the residents and homeowners She felt an adequate compromise would be to severely lace the pine tree and to have the deck painted a darker color rather than white which reflects the sun. Gene Fooks 30457 Via Cambron supported lacing the pine tree as it would give the residents above a see-through view of the ocean while allowing the O'Sullivans to keep their tree and a portion of their privacy. He felt that landscaping at the base of the deck would be beneficial along with some acoustical changes. Mr Young (in rebuttal) stated that he does not have a deck and the tree in question affects his view Secondly, he stated that there is an Ordinance and the trees are in severe violation of the Ordinance. Regarding the privacy issue, he did not feel having your house exposed to the street is unreasonable, as most houses are exposed to the street He felt that the City Council has preferred that lacing of trees not be done if the tree is in the center of a view, as it is from his property Mr. VanKlooster (in rebuttal) felt it was important to realize there is a View Restoration Ordinance and the trees are clearly in violation of this Ordinance. He stated that he was strongly in favor of the staff recommendations in the staff report. He did not feel the legality of the deck should be considered, as 24 years ago the County of Los Angeles approved the deck and 3 years ago the City of Rancho Palos Verdes also approved the deck He also did not feel that lacing the pine tree would be acceptable in restoring the view from his or his neighbor's property. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 6 Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff how high a 24 -inch box tree might be. Project Coordinator Nelson answered that it depends of the type of tree, and noted that trying to achieve what is there cannot happen with a 24 -inch box tree Commissioner Gerstner asked if there had been any discussion on what type of tree could be used as a replacement tree. Project Coordinator Nelson answered that there had not been any discussion, as it was a choice to be made by the foliage owner with final approval by the City Arborist Chairman Mueller asked if the Planning Commission was allowed to consider anything larger than a 24 -inch box tree, per the Guidelines. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that the Guidelines specifically say replacement trees generally should be a 15 gallon size, but no larger than 24 -inch box unless warranted by exceptional circumstances. Commissioner Gerstner felt that possibly replacing the tree with one 48 -inch box would accomplish the goal more efficiently than two 24 -inch box trees Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-18 thereby approving VRP No. 161 as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Knight understood the thoughts and comments of the foliage owner and the neighbors on Via Cambron, however he noted that this is a View Restoration case and that he was able to make all of the necessary findings associated with the View Restoration case. He felt that a good selection of replacement trees will, in the not too distant future, bring back the aesthetics of the street. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the deck is extremely unattractive, however he felt the deck is legal and it is difficult to consider the deck in making a decision He also noted the Youngs do not have a deck and if this application was filed only by the Youngs the findings could be made for approval of the View Restoration Permit. However, he would like to see, if the application is approved, some type of mitigating measures that will truly mitigate the issues of concern regarding the deck He noted that the Planning Commission hears regularly that the Ordinance is not balanced towards the foliage owners, and is bound to abide by the Ordinance but would like to mitigate the concerns of the foliage owner. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that the View Ordinance seems to be very heavily weighted in favor of preservation of views, however he too is bound by the dictates of City laws and the Ordinance. He acknowledged that it makes it very difficult and at Planning Commission Minutes Apnl 27, 2004 Page 7 times unpleasant, however he noted that there are certain specific findings that must be made and that in this situation he could make those findings. He noted that the tree provides screening for what a number of people consider to be an undesirable view of the architectural feature of their neighbor up the hill. He did not think this was something that could be weighed in favor of the foliage owner or the other neighbors on Via Cambron, but asked staff if there something the Planning Commission could do to help mitigate the concerns of the foliage owner. Commissioner Van Wagner felt this neighborhood was a beautiful example of what is cherished in this City in terms of views, foliage, and hillsides He acknowledged this is a difficult decision, however he agreed that the specific findings for the View Restoration Permit could be made. He too would like to explore the possibility of what kind of mitigating measures the Planning Commission could craft to try to maintain some of the balance in the neighborhood. Chairman Mueller felt that Mr Young summed everything up when he stated that he too is an applicant, he doesn't have a deck, and he is relying on the fact that Proposition M is to be enforced, noting that the Canary Island Pine is in the middle of his view He felt that a 60 -foot pine tree in the middle of the view is one of the things that Proposition M was created to deal with and to provide some type of mitigating circumstances, such as replacement foliage. He felt that in this case it was fairly straighfforward in terms of restoring the view, noting that there are several options presented in the staff report. Regarding screening the deck and mitigating the appearance of the deck from below, he felt it might be possible for the applicant to provide foliage to screen the lower part of the deck, but felt the applicant could do that on their own, as it was not part of the View Restoration Permit. He also did not see a privacy concern, as the view from the street into the front yard is not covered under the ordinance and guidelines. Commissioner Van Wagner asked if the Planning Commission could add a condition to require the applicant to plant some type of foliage to help mitigate the view of the deck. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that the issue is not the deck, there is nothing in the Guidelines regarding screening decks, and decks are not protected views. However, she stated that if needed, she could get an opinion from the City Attorney. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has read the Ordinance and the Guidelines to try to find some authority to do something to help mitigate this situation, and was unable to find anything. He added that it would be a good idea for Mr VanKlooster, as a good neighbor, to plant some foliage to mitigate the view of his deck, however he did not think the Planning Commission could mandate the action. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-18 approving VRP No. 161 passed, (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 8 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 55 p m. Chairman Mueller left the meeting, leaving Commissioner Tetreault as the acting Chairman. The Planning Commission then took a short recess until 9.05 p m. at which time they reconvened CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 3. Review of the City Tree Review Permit process Project Coordinator Alvarez presented the staff report giving a brief overview of the City Tree Permit process. He explained staffs streamline proposal concerning the review process of the Code and the primary components that would be affected by the proposed code amendments He explained that at this time staff was requesting the Planning Commission consider the proposed amendments, and should the Planning Commission conceptually accept the amendments, it should direct staff to prepare draft language amending the City Tree Review Permit code, which will then be presented to the Planning Commission at their next meeting Commissioner Knight asked if there was something in the City's new digital mapping system that could be beneficial to this process. Project Coordinator Nelson explained that it would not be relevant, noting that there may soon be a fee accessed to the City Tree Review application, and therefore the determination of what type of tree was existing would not be necessary. She stated that all that would be necessary would be to know if a tree existed and if it was blocking a view Commissioner Knight asked if staff currently uses a checklist to document circumstances for each case, and if this was something new staff was introducing Project Coordinator Alvarez stated that staff does not currently use a checklist but rather prepares a staff report for the Director. He explained that the checklist will save time and streamline the process. Commissioner Knight suggested that on the checklist there be additional space for comments for situations where there are circumstances that do not apply to what is on the checklist. Commissioner Knight noted that currently the only notices given are to the applicant and abutting property owner, and if another neighbor or HOA wants to maintain a certain aesthetic on the street, they would not be notified. Project Coordinator Nelson explained that the thought on that was the tree is owned by the City and the City wanted to limit the interaction to those that were directly affected by the decision of what would happen to the tree. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Knight felt that if the trees are owned by the City then they are somewhat public and more people in the neighborhood should be noticed. Senior Planner Mihranian suggested language where the HOA would also be notified regarding City trees, and it would then be up to the HOA to notify others in the neighborhood if they so desired Commissioner Knight asked staff to look into the suggestion and the pros and cons associated with it Commissioner Gerstner asked why only an abutting property could adopt a tree. Project Coordinator Nelson explained that generally speaking, the resident who has the tree in front of their house usually takes on the responsibility of watering and taking care of the tree. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the notification process, and felt it was important that all adjacent property owners to the tree should be notified He agreed with the suggestion of parkway trees versus roadway median and the park, as it was just a change of terminology He discussed official versus unofficial trees and, given staff would not be distinguighing between the trees, could staff accidentally cut down an official tree Project Coordinator Nelson explained that whether or not the tree was official or unofficial does not detbrmine whether or not the City takes action on the tree She explained that official yrs. unofficial is there to determine financial responsibility, as if the tree is official the City will pay for whatever action is going to occur. She explained that if the tree is not an official tree, as there are instances where people have planted things in the right-of-way or were not part of the original landscaping, the City's position has been that it will not be maintained at the City's expense. However, because the City is looking at charging fees for these permits, it becomes Tess of an issue Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if there have been any studies or projections done on what the impact of the proposals for changes would have on the reduction of staff time and cost savings. Project Coordinator Nelson answered there was a study done within the last year, explaining the biggest issue in regards to the cost is the amount of time city staff has to spend on each individual application. She explained that charging some type of fee for the process would help recover some of the cost for staffs time and possibly reduce the number of applications submitted to the City. Commissioner Tetreault understood the goal is to reduce costs and perhaps recapture some of the costs by collecting a fee, however he felt that was somewhat unfair In the case of a City Tree Permit, the City would be charging someone to come to the City to Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 10 tell the City that a City owned tree is impairing their recognized significant property right, which is a view He suggested creating a mechanism where a fee is collected, however it is refunded if the tree is found to be impairing a view and needs to be trimmed or removed. He also suggested that if the findings are made that the City tree is impairing a view, some amount could be charged to the applicant to have the tree trimmed or removed, so that like a View Restoration Permit, the applicant is bearing some of the cost of getting their view back. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Tetreault in that there could be some type of refundable fee for the City Tree Permit Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they had considered outsourcing the responsibility of monitoring the tree trimming or the removal of the City trees. Project Coordinator Nelson felt that was a suggestion that should be considered There being no further comments, Senior Planner Mihranian explained that this item will be brought to the Planning Commission on May 11 for the Commission's review so that a recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 28: 5303 Valley View Road Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the revision to the Conditional Use Permit He explained that when reviewing the proposed revision to the Conditional Use Permit, staff could not make all of the findings in a positive manner. He stated that staff was concerned that the subject site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed project, as the RPD was approved to allow the properties to deviate from the minimum lot size and the maximum allowable lot coverage. He also explained that lot coverage restrictions are meant to provide adequate light and air, thus lessening a buildings visual impact onto adjacent neighboring properties. Additionally, it ensures adequate open space and recreational area provided on each lot. He stated that staff felt that altering the approved footprint could have an adverse significant effect on neighbonng properties, which would not be consistent with the original intent of the RPD. Furthermore, he noted that when reviewing the project with the General Plan, staff did not feel that the proposed project maintains suitable and adequate landscaping and open space as required in the General Plan policy Therefore, staff was recommending denial of the project. Commissioner Van Wagner asked staff if their main issue was lot coverage Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that lot coverage was staff's main concern. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Van Wagner asked if this enclosed patio was considered the same as adding a room addition Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that in this case, because it is the alteration of a building footprint, there is no distinction between an enclosed patio or an addition. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the proposal was for a trellis if it would be considered the same. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that other properties in the area have added trellis type patio covers and noted that the distinction is a patio cover is not part of the building footprint. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff at what threshold of construction would staff consider a structure to change the footprint of the house. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that footprint is altered once the walls have been constructed. Commissioner Tetreault opened the public hearing. Walter Chanq 5303 Valley View Road (applicant) stated that the main purpose of the project was to allow his family to have more recreation space and to protect his outdoor furniture. He noted that the enclosure is only 8 feet high and he did not feel that impacted any of his neighbors, as they have two-story homes and his is a single -story home. He felt that there is more than adequate open space on his property. He felt that the Planning Commission should allow some flexibility so that he can improve his family living and enjoy more peaceful freedom as a homeowner Commissioner Knight asked what the room is that is adjacent to the proposed patio enclosure. Mr Chang answered that it is a living room and dining room. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Chang if he was aware the property is part of a planned residential development and had limitations on it Mr. Chang responded that he was not aware of it when he bought it, however he understands now. He felt that he is not requesting a large change on his property and the City should be more understanding and flexible Tony Gialketsis 1504 Highland Ave. Manhattan Beach, stated that he is the designer/builder for the project. He felt that the patio enclosure he is proposing is a patio cover with screens and glass and has no intention of being a room addition He felt that what he is proposing is in line with the intention of the RPD and stressed that Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 12 the existing doors to the house will remain and it would not be any type of room addition Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Gialketsis if he felt the issue comes down to the definition of what he is constructing. Mr Gialketsis agreed, noting that if this were a patio cover it would be no problem. He stated that the HOA has approved this patio enclosure as have the neighbors He reiterated that he felt this was simply a patio cover with glass and screens on the side and should not be considered part of the building footprint. Commissioner Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Van Wagner asked staff to clarify what the Planning Commission was being asked to do in this situation. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that if the Planning Commission can make the findings to alter the footprint, the Planning Commission would approve the project and direct staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting the decision. However, if the Planning Commission feels they cannot make the necessary findings, the direction would be to deny the project and adopt the Resolution before them. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he was concerned about approving the project, and if the project were to be approved he would want some type of limitation as to how this was being allowed. He felt it was important to be cautious when approving any revision to a Conditional Use Permit so that the actual Conditional Use Permit wasn't changed by allowing a specific use. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that this proposed revision is specific to this property and should anyone else in the tract want to add something they would have to apply for a revision to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Tetreault asked for clarification of what constitutes a building footprint and what constitutes an increase in footprint. Senior Planner Mihranian answered that there is no definition of building footprint, however the practice of staff has been any enclosed structure, habitable or non - habitable, is considered building footprint. Commissioner Van Wagner asked if there was a definition of an enclosed structure. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that any type of structure with walls was considered an enclosed structure. Commissioner Tetreault asked if anyone in the tract has applied for an increase to the footprint of their home. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 13 Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that there have been no applications in this tract to increase the footprint of the existing home. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there was any modification they could suggest that would make it considered not enclosed Associate Planner Blumenthal felt that if there was some type of roll -up wall or canvas cover would not be considered an enclosed structure Senior Planner Mihranian added that there would have to be some type of enclosure that does not have permanent walls. Commissioner Tetreault asked if only a section of the wall was enclosed would it then be considered an enclosed structure increase in the footprint. Senior Planner Mihranian explained if was the Planning Commission's desire to allow the structure and categorize it as a patio cover with the understanding that a portion of it would remain open, staff would not consider it fully enclosed and it would not be considered part of the building footprint. Associate Planner Blumenthal added that the application before the Planning Commission is considered an enclosed patio and considered an alteration to the building footprint. He explained that if the Planning Commission were to deny this application the applicant could apply for a Site Plan Review for a patio cover or the Planning Commission can opt to approve the alteration of the footprint but condition the approval that a certain percentage of it must remain open. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the staff recommendation, however the motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Gerstner recognized that neighbors are not objecting to the project, that it is a one-story home, and that the applicant is trying to improve his home; however, he was concerned that this project changes the footprint and is against what the CUP is trying to accomplish Therefore, he felt to give the applicant what he wants, which is a place to have some controlled outdoor space and not have the furniture get wet, it can be done without completely enclosing this area. He suggested conditionally approving the project that at least one side remains open. Commissioner Knight felt that this project was pushing the envelope in regards to the General Plan and the Residential Planned Development. He felt that it was open to the applicant to come back with a Site Plan Review with a patio cover and possibly some type of roll -down walls. He agreed with the conclusions in the staff report, and supported staff recommendations Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 14 Commissioner Van Wagner agreed with the comments of Commissioners Gerstner and Knight. Commissioner Tetreault was also concerned that this project was trying to get around the conditions set forth in the RPD and that approving the project could set a precedent allowing others in the neighborhood to do the same type of thing. He agreed that this seemed harsh, as this is not a major remodel, however it would be considered an increase to the footprint to the structure. He felt that the nuance between an enclosed patio versus a not quite enclosed patio is perhaps workable and may achieve the desires of the applicant without creating a precedence of altering the Conditional Use Permit to allow an increase to the footprint of the house. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-19 thereby denying, with prejudice, the Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 28 (Case ZON2004-00099) as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (4-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of'April 13, 2004 The minutes were unahimously continued to May 11, 2004. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre -agenda fol• the meeting of May 11, 2004 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1035 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2004 Page 15