Loading...
PC MINS 20041123CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Approved December 14, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mueller at 7.05 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Karp, Knight, Perestam, Tetreault, Chairman Mueller Absent' Commissioner Gerstner and Vice Chair Cote were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Blumenthal. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that 2 letters had been distributed for Agenda Item No. 4, one letter for Agenda Item No 5, and correspondence received at pc(a�rpv com regarding the view restoration application. He also reported that the City Council had upheld the Planning Commission decision on a view restoration appeal Commissioner Tetreault reported that he had distributed to the Planning Commission information that he had found on the Los Angeles Superior Court website regarding Agenda Item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Linne Beleskee 4255 Palos Verdes Dnve South stated that she would like to express her thanks to the Director and staff for stopping the rock cutting that was occurring at the construction site at 2 Yacht Harbor Drive. She explained that the residents were very concerned about the excessive amount of grading that has occurred at the site as well as the large amounts of dirt that have been stockpiled on the site, which she noted is in the landslide moratorium area. She asked that the Planning Commission look into the situation that was occurnng at the site. Milton Rosen, Admirable Drive stated that he would like to reinforce what Ms. Beleskee had said and distributed photographs taken of the construction site He stated that this house is in the moratonum area and felt that too much water was being added to the site during the construction and was concerned about the piles of rock and dirt that are on the property. Chairman Mueller thanked the speakers for their comments and concerns, however noted that this is not an agendized item and therefore the Planning Commission cannot take any action on the matter. He noted that the item may be scheduled for a future City Council meeting and felt that comments and concerns should be directed to the City Council CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation and Tract Map Amendment (Case No. ZON2004-00409): 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report explaining that the Planning Commission had asked this item be continued to allow the Planning Commissioners and staff time to conduct a site visit and the neighboring property at 6264 Ocean Terrace Drive and for staff to include a more formal view analysis in the staff report. The Planning Commission also requested the owner submit information from a structural engineer regarding removal of the balcony and what impact that would have on the existing residence. He explained that the engineer's report was submitted to staff and is included in the staff report. He also explained that staff conducted a view analysis and concluded there was no significant view impact resulting from the new residence, and showed several pictures taken from the Butterworth residence. He stated that staff concluded that the necessary findings could be made and recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Karp asked if the house had been built in the proper location, would there be any view impairment from the balcony at the Butterworth residence. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that there would be no view impairment at that location. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the applicant had requested any type of setback variance when the project was originally before the Planning Commission Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the applicant had not originally requested a setback variance when the proposed residence was before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they had any sense as to whether or not the Planning Commission at that time would have approved a setback variance to build the house where it is presently situated, if it had been requested. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that this situation is unique, as a tract amendment would have been necessary to allow the building within the setback area. He also noted that the setback from the easement is not a Development Code standard and is unique to this particular property. Commissioner Tetreault asked why it had taken almost three years since discovering this discrepancy to come before the Planning Commission Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there were several issues that had to be addressed, one being the work that was done on the adjoining property. He stated that there were several alternatives available on how to deal with this issue, and it took over a year for the negotiations between property owners to occur. He also explained that there was the issue of relocating the trail, which is on the York Long Point property, and the many parties met several times to come up with alternative trail solutions. He stated that all these issues had to have some type of resolution that was agreeable to the City Attorney before the matter could move forward. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify the policy for setbacks for any other parcel in the City, as it was his understanding that setbacks are measured from the property line irrespective of the easements, assuming the easements are Tess than the setback itself. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that is correct, with the exception of private street easements. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that it was important to note that the Code does not require any setbacks from easements, and therefore one can build right up to the trail easement. He noted that a trail easement setback is very unusual, as this situation rarely occurs within the City and in this tract it only occurs on three lots Commissioner Knight asked if the original building plans were the ones used by the engineer to establish his certification of building location. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that these were the plans used by the engineer. Commissioner Knight asked about the location of the proposed retaining wall and why it couldn't be located on the edge of the easement as opposed to the middle of the trial easement. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the trail consultant felt that, for the enjoyment of the trail user, the trail needs to be as far away from the backyard as possible and graded down some so as not to be at the same level of the residence. He also stated Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 3 that staff had given the trail consultant instructions to try to minimize the height of the retaining wall. Commissioner Knight stated that it appears the lot has been graded to the property line, however the staff report discusses grading that extended into the adjacent property, and asked staff to explain that situation. Associate Planner Schonborn displayed a picture of the grading plan and explained that the new fill slope was supposed to be entirely on the applicant's property, however during construction a small section was graded onto Mr York's property Commissioner Tetreault asked staff to explain the roof element proposed by staff to address privacy, Associate Planner Schonborn explained that there is an existing roof element over the first floor at the eastern elevation which ends where the balcony begins, and what staff was envisioning was that the roofline be continued to a point so that the southeast portion of the balcony is no longer a useable gathering area to provide additional privacy to the neighbor. Commissioner Knight asked if the improvements on the Butterworth property were in the easement area and, if so, should the Planning Commission analyze impacts to areas that are not built according to the Code or tract amendments Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there is no Code or guidance on that issue He stated that at the previous meeting Commissioner Karp had asked if there was an expectation of privacy when something is built in an easement area. He explained that there are improvements on the Butterworth property that are in an easement and it is up to the Planning Commission to determine if there is an expectation of privacy from that area. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they saw any invasion of privacy from the corner of the balcony or from the master bedroom on the Butterworth's property. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that staff felt that one would have to stand quite far out on the applicant's deck to look into the Butterworth's residence. He stated that there was also existing foliage, which was existing when the initial approval for the house was given, that provides screening to the Butterworth property. Commissioner Knight asked if the Butterworths were to trim that foliage, if standing on the balcony would allow one to look onto the Butterworth's master bedroom and balcony Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff felt that it would then be possible. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 4 Chairman Mueller asked if the balcony was part of the original plans, and if so, was it built per plan. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the balcony was part of the original approval, however the balcony was built slightly different than what is shown on the plans. He noted that staff looked at the change at the time it was being built, and was approved, since the change was largely architectural. Chairman Mueller asked staff if they agreed with the engineering assessment that was provided by the applicant regarding removing portions of the balcony. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff read the assessment and consulted with the Building Official, who did not disagree with the assessment Commissioner Karp asked staff to explain what parts of the existing structure now block the view that the Butterworths would have had if the residence were built where it was approved to be built Associate Planner Schonborn pointed out the area on the plans, which was a portion of the existing balcony. Commissioner Karp asked if that portion of the balcony were removed if the Butterworths view would be restored to what existed before the residence was built. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that was correct. Commissioner Karp asked Commissioner Tetreault to explain the handout he had distributed regarding this case Commissioner Tetreault explained that the handout consisted of two items he had obtained from the Los Angeles Superior Court website regarding a lawsuit between the applicant and his engineer, which included a complaint for damages and a notice of settlement for the same case He stated that he was going to ask the applicant questions regarding this handout and felt that he should share this information with the rest of the Planning Commission. Chairman Mueller opened the public hearing. Sultan Ahamed 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive stated that he would like to clarify the facts regarding the construction of his home He explained that it was not until the house was completed that it was discovered the house was built in the wrong location, and since that time he has been working with the City to resolve the situation. He stated that it was only two months ago that he was informed of his neighbor's privacy concerns He noted that the Butterworths purchased their home in April 2000, and at that time his house was already framed and the balcony was in its current location He stated that the Butterworths have lived in their home for four years and this is the first time the Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 5 complaint of privacy and views have been brought up He wondered if this hearing had never happened if the issue would have ever been brought up. He stated that he was willing to work with the Butterworths to try to resolve the situation in the best possible way. He felt that if privacy were the issue he would be willing to put frost glass on one side of the balcony which he felt would solve the problem. He felt that with the frosted glass and the existing foliage there would be no privacy issue. He also suggested building a planter on that side of the balcony which would prevent people from going in that area and there would be no privacy issue. He did not think that views were an issue, as the balcony does not block views from the extreme right of the Butterworth's home Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Ahamed if his lawsuit filed against the engineer had been settled. Mr Ahamed explained that he did not feel it was settled as he had not yet agreed to the terms of the settlement Commissioner Perestam referred to the engineer's report regarding the deck, and asked Mr. Ahamed how the engineer came to the conclusion of a cantilevered deck, and if any other options had been explored. Mr Ahamed explained that the engineer had determined that columns would not work because they would have to be placed too close to the front door and window and would obstruct the entrance and block the window Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Ahamed if the floor of the covered patio area were removed but the frame were to remain, if that would maintain the structural integrity while making the balcony unusable in that area and address the privacy issue. Mr. Ahamed answered that if that is what is necessary he will do it, however he did not think it was necessary to go to that extreme and that the same results could be achieved through compromise. Commissioner Knight asked Mr Ahamed if he would be willing to frost or use translucent glass on the two windows on the east elevation that are farther forward than on the originally approved plan. Mr. Ahamed explained that the two windows are in different rooms, but he would be willing to do that if it was necessary. Minaz Ahamed 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive showed a diagram to the Planning Commission showing the applicant's property, the neighboring property, and the trail. He clarified where on the property where the house is currently located, as well as the easement and the trail. He explained that even if the house had been built in the correct position the privacy issue, if there is one, would not change because of the angle of the balcony. He showed that the improvements on the Butterworth property on Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 6 in the easement area and questioned whether views should be considered from the easement area Bill Butterworth 6264 Ocean Terrace Drive stated that he was not opposed to the home located in the original position as shown on the plans, however was opposed to the current location of the home. He explained that before he bought his home he went to the City to look at the plans for the house under construction and questioned if the house was in the right location, and was assured that it was He also stated that he was told his residence would maintain a 180 -degree view after the applicant's house was built. He therefore felt he had done due diligence before buying his home He stated that his main issue was one of view impairment, noting that he disagrees with staff that the subject house does not create a significant view impairment He explained that when sitting in the room there is as much as 25 percent of the view lost with the house and the foliage planted. He also objected to the loss of view of the coast, golf course, and sunset islands, as these views are impaired by the unapproved structure and would not be impaired without the structure. He discussed the proposed roof element suggested by staff and stated that he would prefer not to have a red tile roof there as it provides a strong negative visual impact and would prefer not to have that. He stated that removal of the deck would resolve his issues He felt this was an unfortunate situation for everyone, but ultimately the applicant is the responsible party and must bear the burden of fixing it, and he shouldn't suffer because of his error. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the applicant had mentioned the date when Mr. Butterworth had purchased his home and the stage of construction at that time, and asked Mr. Butterworth if his recollection was different. Mr. Butterworth stated that his recollection was slightly different, as he opened escrow in March 2000 and at that time the lower part of the house had the studs in place and the upper part had not yet been framed. He explained that he had concerns about the placement of the house but had been assured by staff that the house was in the correct place. He stated that as time went on he planted foliage on his property to mitigate the impact to his privacy He stated that if anyone had ever mentioned to him that the house was built in the wrong location he would have contacted the City much sooner than he did. Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Butterworth to clarify his opinion regarding the roof element He felt that Mr. Butterworth was objecting to the roof element because of its color and height above the original balcony floor. Mr. Butterworth answered that was correct, as both would create a visual impact. Chairman Mueller asked Mr Butterworth to clarify his thoughts on the impact of removing the balcony. Mr Butterworth explained that the Planning Commission had asked what the impact would be to the residence if the balcony were removed. He felt that to remove the Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 7 balcony would do the same thing as putting the roof element on He felt that 15 feet of the balcony should be removed, as that is how far the house is built in the wrong location. He explained that if that were done then the removed part of the deck would take the deck back to the edge of the house and there would be no cantilever required and the interior of the structure would not need to be changed Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Butterworth if he would be agreeable to instead of the proposed roof element, removing the floor of the balcony or the cover on the patio over a portion of the roof so it could not be used. Mr. Butterworth responded that he conceptually understood what the Chairman was asking, but he would have to see how the side was laid out and it would not do anything to resolve the view issues, as the foliage would be needed to cover the stucco wall that is there Steve Kaplan stated that he was representing Mr. Butterworth in this matter. He stated that he disagrees with staffs privacy and view assessment findings and conclusions. He directed the Planning Commission to Finding No. 7 in the 1999 approval of the project which finds there are no code violations, which is a necessary finding to make when one is seeking a height variation. He stated that the current staff report states that there is now a code violation on the property, a 15 -foot code violation. He stated that view and privacy have been taken away from the Butterworths because the house was not built in the proper location by 15 feet, and therefore he did not feel the Planning Commission could make the necessary required finding He realized the Planning Commission could not ask the house be removed, and felt it was reasonable that the Planning Commission base their decision in favor of an objecting party He asked that the Planning Commission require the balcony be removed to give the Butterworths back their view and a portion of the privacy that was taken from them. Commissioner Karp asked staff to respond to Mr. Kaplan's comments regarding Finding No. 7. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Planning Commission routinely has projects before it that propose not to meet the Code, and the way staff makes this finding is that if the Planning Commission approves a Variance, a Minor Exception Permit, or any other discretionary permit the project will then meet the Code, so making the finding is contingent on the related discretionary permit being approved He explained that if the Planning Commission were to deny the tract amendment then the finding could not be made, as the project would not be in compliance. Mr. Ahamed (in rebuttal) stated that in April 2000 the floor in its present location was finished and he could provide documentation proving that He noted that the condition only requires that 10 feet be removed from the balcony and he had not agreed to remove the entire 15 feet. Mr. Ahamed stated that much of the improvements in Mr. Butterworth's backyard are located in the easement and questioned how it was acceptable for him to have structures in the easement while he is having so much Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 8 trouble with his structure in the setback area Mr Ahamed asked the Planning Commission to look at his situation, stating it was a sincere mistake made by a professional engineer and he has spent years trying to resolve the issue and is willing to continue to work with the neighbor and staff to resolve the issue, but did not want to have to remove the deck. Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:45 p.m the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8-55 p m. at which time they reconvened CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) Chairman Mueller asked staff to clarify the role of the Planning Commission with this application. Director/Secretary explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendment to the Tract Map. He stated that there is a provision in the Development Code that states that applications be processed together as a package. Therefore, because this is all linked together, the final decisions on these applications will be made by the City Council, and the Planning Commission decision is advisory Commissioner Karp stated that if the Ahamed residence had been built in the correct location, the Butterworths would have had a specific view frame However, because the house was built in the wrong place they have a reduced view frame. He stated that everyone agrees the house was built in the wrong location and because of that the neighbor has lost a portion of their view. He felt that the Planning Commission recommend the balcony be removed or cut back to restore the view to the neighbor. Commissioner Knight felt there were one of two choices that could be made, require the building be modified to meet the current setback requirements without the amendment or try to accommodate the as -built application request while mitigating any unintended impacts on the neighbors. He stated that he was leaning toward the later, as Mr. Ahamed was the victim of an error by a licensed surveyor who the City also relied upon for the location of the building However, he noted that it was unfair to have the error impact the neighbor and was inclined to explore ways to mitigate that impact to the neighbor. He stated that he was uncertain with the view ordinance, if the building were built in its present location, that there would be a view impact. He noted that the view ordinance does not address sunsets, and even though the building does block some of the Butterworth's view of the ocean, he did not feel the view impact could be addressed under the view preservation ordinance. He did feel there is a privacy infringement however, but was torn about the idea of taking privacy infringement based upon the Butterworth's outdoor deck and pool area, as it is built into the easement. He did feel Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 9 there was a privacy infringement to the Butterworth's master bedroom and balcony and was inclined to modify the structure to mitigate that infringement He did not feel that taking off the entire balcony was the answer and suggested setting back the accessibility of the upper deck area back far enough and frost the windows on the eastern side of the two front windows that would mitigate the infringement of privacy. Commissioner Tetreault stated that it has become apparent that there are improvements on the Butterworth property that are in the easement, however he noted that this issue was not before the Planning Commission as an agendized item and because of that he did not feel it should play into anyone's decision. He felt that if the original plan had the house located in it's present position, it most likely would not have been approved He stated that in walking the trail he noted that all of the back walls of the homes line up with each other, allowing for maximum views to all the residents. He stated that allowing one house to go beyond this line will give them a view greater than 180 degrees, but will reduce the view of the adjacent neighbor He felt that view is valuable in Rancho Palos Verdes, and every degree of view adds value and enjoyment to the property He therefore felt that the Ahameds, by having their home project out 15 feet beyond what was approved, have actually obtained a benefit He explained that if the Ahameds get what they are requesting because a mistake was made, they will end up with a property that is in a more favorable position than it should have been, while their neighbor is in a disfavorable position Finally, he stated that mistakes in construction will be made, however it should be clear that such mistakes should not be accommodated if they are substantive. He stated that the properties are very valuable and the amount of money involved is considerable. He felt that the biggest victim in this situation may be the Ahameds, however it was important not to give the signal that if something is built thatit can remain. Therefore, he felt that the setback needs to be restored. Commissioner Perestam discussed a tradeoff, noting that the key tradeoff is whether the balcony blocks the view from the Butterworth's property He did not feel the balcony blocks the view from the Butterworth property, however it makes an uncomfortable tradeoff with the privacy issue. He stated that the Butterworths have taken steps to grow vegetation on their property to help protect their privacy, prior to gaining the knowledge that the Ahamed's home was built in the wrong location. Therefore, he felt that tradeoff would be to take away the portion of the deck that infringes on the Butterworth's privacy. He did not feel adding the red tile roof was a good solution, agreeing with Mr Butterworth that it would be distracting in the view frame. He too did not want to set any type precedence allowing construction that was not done per plan to be approved. Chairman Mueller stated that at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had requested staff to do a view analysis and he felt that with this analysis along with reviewing the view ordinance and findings, he felt that, because the deck is less than 16 feet in height, it was difficult to apply the view ordinance to this particular case. He felt that the issue was more that a portion of the house was built into the setback of the easement. He stated that his concern was not only the appearance of the house from Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 10 the neighbor's property but also the issue of privacy. He did not think that whether or not there were improvements in the rear yard area had much bearing on his concerns with privacy He did not think the balcony softens the appearance of the house, but rather extends the appearance of the house out closer to the easement, and makes it appear more massive and larger than it is. He also felt the size of the balcony was a bit out of character with the neighborhood While he was not convinced that removing the entire balcony would solve the issue of privacy and suggested a compromise to leave the patio and reducing the size of the balcony to narrow its width. He felt that narrowing the width of the balcony would solve the issue of the tract amendment, as it should bring the balcony back within the requirements of the easement He stated that at the corner of the balcony there should be some mitigation to not allow use of the balcony at that corner for the privacy concerns He suggested removing the flooring from the corner of the balcony so that it would become a structure but not necessarily having a cover over that particular part. Commissioner Knight referred to the amendment Resolution, Section 2, and felt it should be slightly reworded to include the "intent" of the 15 -foot requirement Associate Planner Schonborn agreed that the section should be reworded. Commissioner Knight referred to Section 3, stating that stronger language should be used in terms of the balcony being allowed to remain. Associate Planner Schonborn agreed Commissioner Knight referred to Section 4, and asked for clarification regarding the time frame of three years on the covenant agreement. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that three years is a typo and it should state 2 years Commissioner Knight felt it was important to clarify, in Section 5, who would be responsible for paying for the modifications for the trail. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that this was in the agreement, however he would clarify in the Resolution that it would be the responsibility of the applicant Commissioner Tetreault moved that the application be denied and all building setbacks be maintained such that the trail easement, where it presently is located today, would be the point from which measurements are taken, and therefore 15 feet to the north from the setback line is where the end of any built up structure of the house should be located. Further, the concrete patio that exists can remain, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Knight felt that Commissioner Tetreault makes very good points with respect to having issues where misplaced improvements which are not compliant be Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 11 allowed to remain and setting a some type of precedence for future applications. However, he felt that in this situation what happened was not the fault of the applicant, which made the decision very difficult He stated that he could not make findings to support the view issue and in terms of the privacy issue he felt that taking a portion of the balcony back to a certain point and restricting it for any kind of access could mitigate it. He also did not think there was a need to run a higher roof along that edge. Chairman Mueller asked staff if the current motion would allow the applicant to maintain a 5 -foot wide balcony on the southern end of the house. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the applicant would be allowed to keep the 5 -foot wide balcony on the southern end of the house Chairman Mueller asked if the motion would address the issue of the columns on the west side. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the two columns would be removed from the existing location and brought in Chairman Mueller asked Commissioner Tetreault if his motion was intended to address the west side of the residence or was he more concerned with the south side. Commissioner Tetreault explained that his interpretation of the staff report was that the 2 columns in the BGR line was a geologic and engineering concern. He asked staff if, because they are currently located in the BGR line, they had been evaluated by an engineer and are considered structurally sound. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that the applicant submitted information to the City Geologist that stated with underpinning of the 2 support columns it would be acceptable to project into the BGR line. He noted that if anything projects beyond the BGR line it would still require a tract amendment. Commissioner Tetreault stated that in terms of his motion, although there is some encroachment, he did not see an impact to trail users or neighbors in the area, and as long as they are structurally sound and do not present a hazard to the public, he does not have a problem leaving the two columns in their current location Commissioner Perestam asked how the motion deals with the east side of the house, and if the deck should be removed to the house or left with five feet, as he felt this was the core of the discussion regarding privacy Commissioner Tetreault answered that had the house been built according to the plan there would be a balcony structure of some type in that area, and therefore he did not think it was appropriate to remove something that had been approved, and therefore he was not recommending mitigation for that portion of the balcony. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 12 Commissioner Knight moved to amend the motion to recommend the two rear windows on the east elevation of the house be translucent glass. Commissioner Tetreault accepted the amendment to his motion, as did Commissioner Karp who had seconded the original motion. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the motion is to deny, however because the columns are in the BGR line, which he understood Commissioner Tetreault discussion that he was recommending they stay where they are currently located, the motion should be to approve the tract amendment for the BGR line exception but deny the tract amendment for the easement exception Commissioner Tetreault answered that was correct The motion was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission decision will be on the Consent Calendar at the next Planning Commission meeting. 2. View Restoration Permit No. 177: 4132, 4139 and 4140 Exultant Drive Director/Secretary Rojas presented that staff report, explaining that staff was recommending this item be continued to an undetermined date. He stated that the parties are attempting to resolve the issue through a private agreement and staff is currently awaiting a formal notification from the applicant withdrawing the application. Commissioner Karp moved to continue the item to an undetermined date, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. View Restoration Permit No. 173: 32653 Seagate Drive Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that staff had recently been informed that the foliage owner has already done significant trimming at the site, and therefore staff is recommending continuing the item so that staff can reassess the view. Therefore, staff was recommending the item be continued to December 14, 2004. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to December 14, 2004, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (5-0). 4. Revision to Grading Permit No. 2293 (Case No. Z0N2004-00472): 2033 Santa Rena Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining that the application was to revise a grading permit to allow 33 additional cubic yards of grading for the Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 13 construction of a retaining wall. He stated that staff has reviewed all of the necessary criteria and can make all of the necessary findings to approve the Grading Permit, and was therefore recommending approval of the revision to the Grading Permit Commissioner Knight asked if there was an expiration on the original grading permit, and how long ago was the original grading permit issued. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that an applicant has one year after receiving approval to apply to Building and Safety for plan check. He stated that has been done, permits have been issued, and construction completed, and therefore the approval is still valid and has not expired. Chairman Mueller opened the public hearing. John Vilicich'953 W First Street, San Pedro, stated that he is the architect for the project and explained that the owner had decided he wanted a retaining wall on the slope, and not knowing that additional City approvals were necessary, began the cut for the wall Don Shults 2129 Velez Drive stated that his residence is approximately 1/2 block from the applicant's house. He stated that these retaining walls should have been built when the addition was taking place as the hill is very steep and the walls will be needed not only for looks but for safety as well. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the additional grading to remove the dirt and construct the retaining wall. Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 21004-50, thereby approving, as presented by staff, the revision to Grading Permit No. 2293, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0). 5. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2004-00115): 6729 Kings Harbor Drive Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that staff has raised concerns with the size and design of the project and cannot make the neighborhood compatibility findings and was recommending denial of the project He stated that on Monday the applicant submitted a letter asking for a continuance of the application to work with staff to address the issues. Therefore, staff was recommending the item be continued to the second week in February. Commissioner Knight highly encouraged staff to work with the applicants to come up with a design that was not as massive and bulky. Commissioner Karp felt the second story overhanging the first story could not work and that the second story should be setback from the first story. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 14 Commissioner Tetreault agreed that the house would not be compatible with the neighborhood, as designed, and felt that if the second story were to be set back from the first story away from the street it may not look as massive Chairman Mueller agreed, adding that this appears to be one of the smallest lots on the street and the proposed addition would make it the largest house on the street. He was pleased that the applicant chose to work with staff to try to make the residence more compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to February 8, 2005, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of November 9, 2004 Commissioner Knight noted a clarification on page 10 of the minutes. Chairman Mueller noted that the roll call was not included on page 1 of the minutes Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (4-0-1) with Chairman Mueller abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of December 14, 2004 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 15