02/12/2002 Planning Commission Agenda February, 2002, 02/12/2002, Planning, Commission, Meeting, Agenda, A request to allow the construction of a 1,015 square foot first-story addition and the construction of a new 1,122 square foot second-story addition to an existing single-family residence. The addition is proposed at a maximum height of 21.31’, as measured from the finish grade adjacent to the lowest foundation (94.12’) to the highest ridge (116.43’), and 18.28’, as measured form the highest elevation to be covered by structure (97.15’) to the highest ridge, Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report explaining the applicant’s request to delete condition no. 19 from the Conditions of Approval. He explained condition no. 19 and that from a visual perspective, as seen from Palos Verdes Drive South, the requirement to construct a pitched roof would visually enhance the structure’s appearance. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission affirm the condition while the applicant requests the Planning Commission delete the condition to allow a flat roof The 02/12/2002 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Agenda February 12, 2002
February 12, 2002

DISCLAIMER

The following Planning Commission agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the Planning Commission Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STAFF REPORTS



This agenda has been prepared for the orderly progression of Planning Commission business.  The Planning Commission is very interested in hearing your comments and encourages your participation in the meeting.  These agenda instructions are intended to familiarize you with how the meeting will be conducted, what to expect and how to most effectively participate in the process.

Staff Reports

Detailed staff reports on the items contained in this agenda are available from the Planning Department the Friday before the meeting and are posted for public viewing immediately prior to the meeting in the hallway outside the chambers.  The Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department is located at City Hall at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes.  The Department's public counter hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday.  The telephone number is (310) 377-6008.

Organization of the Agenda

The Planning Commission agenda is divided into the following sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items, which, unless a request has been received from the public, a Commission member or Staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the Planning Commission.
Continued Business:  This section consists of items that were held over from a previous Planning Commission meetings and for which a decision has not yet been made.
Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed public hearings which have not been previously heard by the Commission.
New Business: This section is for items that do not require a noticed public hearing.  Pursuant to adopted Planning Commission procedure, the Commission will, except under exceptional circumstances and with the consent of the majority of the Commission, adjourn its meetings on or before 12:00 a.m. and not consider new business items after 11:00 p.m., with any unfinished business being continued to the next regular, adjourned, or special meeting.
Audience Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda.  Comments must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.  Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Audience Comments.  If action by the Commission is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda, or referred to Staff, as determined by the Commission.

Presentation of Agenda Items

Unless the Chairperson in his or her discretion should direct otherwise, the order of the presentation is generally as follows:

(a) Presentation of staff report, including any environmental analysis or recommendation.
(b) Questions of staff by members of Planning Commission.
(c) Public hearing opened.
(d) Presentation of the applicant(s) or appellant(s).
(e) Presentation of persons in favor of the requested action.
(f) Presentation of persons in opposition to the requested action.
(g) Rebuttal comments by the applicant(s) or appellant(s), if requested.
(h) Closing comments by staff.
(i) Public hearing closed.


How to Speak on an Item

 In order to speak on an item, please completely fill out a Request to Speak form and return it to the recording secretary.  These half-sheet forms (which are printed on colored paper) are available on the table in the hallway outside the chambers or from the recording secretary, who is seated on the left-hand side of the dais (the table with the blue skirt at the front of the meeting room), next to the light timer.  Requests to speak on an item must be submitted to the recording secretary prior to the completion of the remarks of the first speaker on the item.  No request forms to speak on the particular item will be accepted after that time.

 After your name is called by the recording secretary, please approach the lectern and speak clearly into the microphone.  The height of the microphone may be adjusted by hand if necessary.  Before beginning your comments on the item, please state your name and address for the record.

 The length of time that each person is allowed to speak on individual items is determined by the Chairman and is usually based on the number of speakers on the particular item.  Normally, the applicants and appellants are limited to a five (5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal (if requested). All other persons are generally limited to three (3) minutes per person. 

 Submittal of Written Correspondence

 You may submit written evidence to the Planning Commission through the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and request that the Commission receive copies of the submitted materials prior to the meeting.  However, such written evidence must be submitted by 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.  If any written evidence is submitted after the Monday noon deadline, the Commission will not consider it at the meeting.  However, it will be distributed as part of the agenda packet for any forthcoming meeting, provided that the item is continued.  This does not prevent you from reading written comments that are submitted late into the record as part of oral comments, in accordance with the time limits discussed above.

Conduct at the Meeting

The Planning Commission has adopted a set of rules for conduct during Planning Commission meetings. Although it is a very rare occurrence, the Chairperson may order from the Planning Commission Chambers any person(s) who commit the following acts with respect to a regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Commission or any member thereof, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
3. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Chairperson which shall include an order to be seated or refrain from addressing the Commission.
4. Any other interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.

Your cooperation in making the Planning Commission meeting run smoothly and fairly for all participants in greatly appreciated.


BEGINNING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA


RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.


SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01



CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



COMMUNICATIONS:


Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

  • None

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2002


RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:



CONTINUED BUSINESS:



2. HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT NO. 938: Lane Building Designs (applicant) and Jeffrey and Laurie Younggren, (owner), 4362 Exultant Drive. (BY)

Requested Action: A request to allow the construction of a 1,015 square foot first-story addition and the construction of a new 1,122 square foot second-story addition to an existing single-family residence. The addition is proposed at a maximum height of 21.31’, as measured from the finish grade adjacent to the lowest foundation (94.12’) to the highest ridge (116.43’), and 18.28’, as measured form the highest elevation to be covered by structure (97.15’) to the highest ridge.

Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-__, denying without prejudice Height Variation Permit No. 938 and approve, with conditions, Site Plan Review No. 9202.


PUBLIC HEARINGS: (NO ITEMS)



NEW BUSINESS:



3. CREATION OF AN INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY FILE: (PC)

Requested Action: Discuss methods to summarize Planning Commission decisions by creating some type of "institutional memory" file.

Recommendation: Provide Staff with direction.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:


Staff





Commission


ADJOURNMENT:


The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
February 26, 2002, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.



AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.


SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01



CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

  • None

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:





1. MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2002


DRAFT

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2002

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

FLAG SALUTE

Commissioner Long led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Vannorsdall, and Chairman Lyon
Absent: None

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Mihranian, Contract Planner Gus Romo, and Recording Secretary Peterson.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Without objection, the agenda was approved as presented.

COMMUNICATIONS

Director/Secretary Rojas distributed two items relating to Agenda Item No. 5 as well as a memo regarding recruitment for City Commission and Committee positions and a draft staff report prepared by Councilman Stern for an upcoming City Council agenda item dealing with expanding the scope of the Commissions.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that at the City Council meeting of January 12 the City Council discussed the General Plan and asked staff to present the General Plan policies to the City Council for their review at a future meeting.

Director/Secretary Rojas introduced the new Associate Planner, Dave Blumenthal, to the Planning Commission.


CONSENT CALENDAR



1. Minutes of January 8, 2002


Commissioner Long felt that comments from Commissioner Cartwright were not included on page 3 of the minutes and asked that the tape of the meeting be reviewed and his comments be added.

Commissioner Cartwright agreed.

The minutes were approved as amended, (5-0).


CONTINUED BUSINESS



2. Grading Permit No. 2191: Larry Peha (applicant) and Mr. and Mrs. Heru Wiredja (owner), 3815 Palos Verdes Drive South


Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report explaining the applicant’s request to delete condition no. 19 from the Conditions of Approval. He explained condition no. 19 and that from a visual perspective, as seen from Palos Verdes Drive South, the requirement to construct a pitched roof would visually enhance the structure’s appearance. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission affirm the condition while the applicant requests the Planning Commission delete the condition to allow a flat roof.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

Larry Peha 67 14th Street San Pedro, stated that at the original meeting there was discussion about the height of the building in respect to the neighboring properties to the rear as well as slope stability; however, he did not recall there was a discussion regarding condition no. 19. Mr. Peha explained that he was proposing a flat roof over the living room and entry area rather than the pitched roof as recommended by staff. He felt a pitched roof would bring the overall plate level down, thereby reducing the size of the windows. He noted that there was a commanding view from the living room area. He stated that he would bring the grade up at the front of the building where the living room is to try to minimize the height of the structure at that point. He also felt that landscaping would mitigate the mass of the building.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that it was an unintentional oversight by the Planning Commission not to specifically address the condition at the original meeting. He asked Mr. Peha to address staff’s concerns that the flat roof would be a significant distraction for drivers traveling along Palos Verdes Drive South.

Mr. Peha responded that the amount of flat roof he was proposing would be very insignificant in comparison to the entire building. He also distributed a photo board showing other flat roofs in the immediate neighborhood.

Chairman Lyon stated that staff was properly concerned about the appearance of the house and principally that as one drives east along Palos Verdes Drive South this residence would be seen for an extended period of time. He did not think that the fact there were other flat roofs in the area was a dominant consideration. As a general rule, he did not think the Planning Commission should change the architectural style of plans without good cause.

Commissioner Mueller asked what the height of the proposed residence was as compared to the home at the corner.

Mr. Peha stated that he had worked extensive with staff to determine the best placement for this residence on the lot.

Commissioner Mueller stated that because of the size and position of the house he was concerned about the flat roof. He asked about the upper windows and what view would be seen from those windows.

Mr. Peha responded that the upper windows would encompass more of a sky view.

Commissioner Vannorsdall did not think getting more sky view was a good reason to have a bigger window.

Commissioner Cartwright asked what the depth of the proposed flat roof would be.

Mr. Peha answered that it went back approximately 17 feet in addition to the deck area off the master bedroom.

Chairman Lyon asked how much of the sky view would be eliminated with a pitched roof.

Mr. Peha compared it to watching a 42-inch television as compared to a 72-inch television, as it was more encompassing.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that he drove Palos Verdes Drive South several times to try to visualize the residence with a flat roof or a mansard roof. He felt that when this structure comes into view one is looking over the existing white house on Forestall. He stated that house always caught his attention, no matter which way he was driving on Palos Verdes Drive South. He felt that, even when looking over the existing house, it would still be the predominant view because it was stark white and had sharp angles to it. Therefore, he did not think it really mattered what the applicant did with the roof.

Senior Planner Mihranian agreed. However he added that staff felt that regardless of the type of development that occurred on this lot there will be a prevailing appearance from Palos Verdes Drive South. He noted that there was a condition that required the new home to be painted in earth tones to mitigate such concerns. He also stated staff felt that incorporating a pitched roof into the design was another way to try to soften the visual appearance of the house from Palos Verdes Drive South.

Commissioner Cartwright did not feel a flat roof was a significant issue in regards to softening the appearance of the house from Palos Verdes Drive South.

Commissioner Mueller asked what would prevent the owners from using the flat roof as an extension of the adjacent deck.

Mr. Peha answered that the residents would have to step over the deck railing. Furthermore, the roof would be designed with a different live load than the deck, as it was very rare that there would be people standing on the roof. Mr. Peha added that he has work extensively with staff to come up with a house that was much smaller and less visible from the street than the original proposal.

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked what type of roof covering would be used on the flat roof.

Mr. Peha stated that a colored rock roof would be used on the flat area

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Mueller stated that because of the location of the house in regards to Palos Verdes Drive South and the location of the house on the slope, it would be very visible from the street. He was concerned about the flat roof as he felt it would give the house a massive look from the street. He agreed with staff that anything that could be done to soften the look of the house from Palos Verdes Drive South should be integrated into the design. He did not consider the loss of a sky view from the windows to be a significant reason to eliminate the pitch roof condition.

Commissioner Long agreed with Commissioner Mueller’s comments. He felt that when there was a difference of opinion between the staff and the architect regarding an aesthetic issue, he would be inclined to go with the recommendations of the staff. He did not think that preservation of a sky view was a compelling reason to allow a flat roof with the deletion of condition no. 19.

Commissioner Vannorsdall did not think a flat roof would make an impact one way or the other along Palos Verdes Drive South and therefore supported the architect in this issue.

Commissioner Cartwright felt that larger windows not only provided more of a sky view but also provided more light as well as a feeling of expansiveness. He also felt that since the proposed residence was to be painted in earth tones and when landscaping was completed, that whether or not there was a flat roof would make little difference.

Chairman Lyon stated that as a general rule he was inclined to side with an architect when it came to aesthetic decisions. However, he understood the staff’s concern with the appearance of the residence from people driving on Palos Verdes Drive South. He noted that there have been no public comments regarding the acceptability or unacceptability of a flat roof on the residence. He did not think a flat roof would make much of a difference with this structure.

Commissioner Cartwright moved to delete Condition No. 19 of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36 as adopted by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2001, thereby amending the conditions of approval to allow a flat roof over the living room, rotunda, and entry foyer, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (3-2) with Commissioners Long and Mueller dissenting.

Commissioner Mueller explained that he supported the staff’s recommendation and their expertise in this situation should be considered because of their broad view of City, as compared to the architect. He stated that he looked to the staff for a more fair judgment that would represent all of the residents of the City. Commissioner Long agreed.

Commissioner Vannorsdall raised a question regarding Condition No. 31 regarding outside lighting.

Chairman Lyon asked if that could be discussed as it was not publicly noticed.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that it could not be discussed without a public notice. He noted that the condition read that the exterior lighting would be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that exterior lighting on curved roads should come before the Planning Commission in the future.


PUBLIC HEARINGS



3. Height Variation No. 930, Grading Permit No. 2279, and Minor Exception Permit No. 596: Ron and Blanca Letvin (applicant), 6528 Nancy Road


Senior Planner Mihranian presented a brief staff report stating that there had been concerns raised over the accuracy of the silhouette. He explained that the survey of the lot had been done incorrectly, subsequently placing the silhouette in the wrong location. Therefore, the silhouette was corrected according to the new survey and the public notice was sent. Therefore staff requests the project be continued to the February 26, 2002 meeting.

Without objection, the Planning Commission accepted staff’s recommendation and continued the item to the meeting of February 26, 2002.



4. Height Variation No. 938: Lane Building Designs (applicant) and Jeffrey and Laurie Younggren (owner) 4362 Exultant Drive


Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the applicants have requested more time and staff was recommending the application be continued to February 12, 2002.

Without objection, the Planning Commission accepted staff’s recommendation and continued the item to the meeting of February 12, 2002.



5. Conditional Use Permit No. 226, Grading Permit No. 2296, and Environmental Assessment No. 742: Verizon Wireless Services, Mr. John Koos (applicant) 32201 Forestal Drive.


Gus Romo began by explaining he was a contract employee with the Planning Department hired to help out while the City was hiring new staff. Mr. Romo then presented the staff report explaining that staff continues to be in opposition of the proposal, even though it has been revised. He gave a brief history of the project and stated that the applicant submitted a revised project to the City in early January. He stated that, though the project has been revised, it has not been revised to meet all of staffs and the residents original concerns. He explained that staff has received written comments from four surrounding property owners in opposition of the project. He explained that the current antenna is camouflaged as a pine tree and a new view obstruction is being proposed in a spot where there is presently no view obstruction. Taking the view preservation and restoration ordinance into account, staff believes the mono-pine design alone is not the answer, but rather the mono-pine being placed in an area no visible to residents or projecting in front of ocean views. He stated that staff believes this installation of the mono-pine would be harmful to the natural environment by creating adverse impact and is therefore recommending denial without prejudice of the project.

Commissioner Cartwright asked if there were any other mono-pine structures on the peninsula.

Mr. Romo stated that he was not aware of any other mono-pines on the peninsula.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

John Koos (applicant) represent Verizon Wireless stated that he has met with the residents at the site and with the planning staff to discuss design options for the facility. He stated that a mono-pine similar to the one proposed has been erected in the city of Cypress and he displayed a picture of that pine. He stated that this was a state-of-the-art mono-pine and was very realistic and that the antennas were virtually invisible in relationship to the branches. He stated that he was now proposing cooling cabinets, approximately 7 feet in height and that these cooling system utilizes the natural environment to cool the unit. He stated that the noise created by this unit should be inaudible to the surrounding residents, as it produced a noise level of 65 dba from 4 feet away from the site. Mr. Koos stated that Verizon had a site to the east and a site to the west of the proposed location and there were no other carriers in between that they could co-locate with. He stated that site locations are determined by need and customer complaints.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that other wireless companies have fairly good reception along Palos Verdes Drive South and was curious as to why Verizon had such trouble with reception in that area and why they need another pole to achieve the reception.

Mr. Koos answered that at one time Verizon covered the area fairly well. However, due to the increase in usage and subscribers in the area, what was covered by two sites is now being overloaded and a third site was necessary.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Koos if he had looked at other locations at the site.

Mr. Koos responded that Verizon was very flexible as to where the pole could be located at the site, however the City Manager’s office, as owner of the site, initially provided some direction on placement and felt that the raw land near the tennis court was a more appropriate location rather than the area near the school.

Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the City Manager’s Office and City Council has to grant authority for the application. Once this is granted the application goes through the regular review process through the Planning Department and the Planning Department then looks for the best site on the property to minimize impacts. He explained that he had assured Mr. Koos that the Planning Department was open to any location that could best camouflage the antenna.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff to comment on the area to the southeast, near the field, as an alternative location.

Associate Planner Mihranian explained that the recreation fields are owned by the school district and the City owns Ladera Linda Community Center and the excess parking lot near the tennis courts. He stated that the transition slope by the tennis courts is owned by the school district. He thought that the area Commissioner Cartwright was asking about was owned by the City.

Commissioner Mueller stated that the Planning Commission had approved the location of a Sprint antenna on a telephone pole near the site and asked why Verizon couldn’t co-locate on that telephone pole.

Mr. Koos explained that the Sprint site on the telephone pole was a micro-cell and the power provided was very minimal and very targeted as compared to the cell site Verizon was requesting.

Commissioner Mueller asked if Verizon could substitute two or three smaller antennas at various sites for the one big mono-pine site and get the same type of coverage.

Mr. Koos stated it was not economical for Verizon to do that and there was also a design issue involved. He felt there would have to be three separate freestanding facilities in the vicinity as compared to the one.

Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that the Planning Commission has asked for an overall present and future plan with each antenna application, and asked if one had been submitted with this application.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that staff had a plan, but did not have it available for the meeting. He noted that the plans are always changing.

Don Richardson 32206 Helm Place stated that the open space in question was used frequently for soccer and there was always something going on in the field. He did not think it would be right to prevent the use of the open space by putting the facility in that location. He noted that Mr. Koos had commented that the reason this antenna was needed was because of increased customer use and it was a demand issue. He was concerned that a precedence was being set and that in the future there could be a Ladera Linda mono-pine forest. He acknowledged that the City was required to allow the wireless companies to provide service in the City, but felt the City should encourage the companies to look harder and longer for acceptable alternatives.

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Richardson how this proposed mono-pine would impact him.

Mr. Richardson responded that the proposed tree would impact him less than the previous proposal, however he did not know what the noise impact would be at 65 db.


RECESS AND RECONVENE


At 8:50 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 9:10 p.m. at which time they reconvened.


PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT)


Cecil Fleener
32206 Valor Place stated that outside of his living room is a pool and deck where he does much of his entertaining during the summertime. He stated that he enjoys the view looking up the slope as there is a lot of natural vegetation. He was unhappy that, if approved, he would have to look at the mono-pine, which he did not think looked like any kind of tree he has ever seen. He said that the area was unique, in that at night it was extremely quiet and they could hear anyone who was out on the slope talking. He was concerned about the air conditioning cabinets and the noise the air conditioning units would make.

Commissioner Vannorsdall did not think the units were noisy, however he suggested placing the cooling units twenty feet back from the edge of the slope toward the ocean.

Commissioner Cartwright agreed that if the cabinets were moved back Mr. Fleener would not be able to see them from his house or yard. He asked Mr. Fleener if he would have a concern if the mono-pine were done sufficiently so that it looked realistic.

Mr. Fleener did not feel that the tree would blend in with anything and would stick out like a sore thumb.

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Long noted that at previous hearings regarding this matter he had recused himself erroneously as he had thought the applicant was a client of his law firm. He has since confirmed that the applicant was not a current nor former client. He stated that he was absent from a portion of the previous hearing but has since reviewed the record and is familiar with the minutes of the meeting. Therefore, he did not feel he should recuse himself from this application.

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked staff if there was a time constraint due to the Permit Streamlining Act, as he felt it may be very difficult to make a decision on the application at this meeting.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that with the original application there is a time frame in which a decision must be made. He noted that State law allows a 90 day extension, which the applicant has already granted, making the deadline January 23. He felt that even if the Planning Commission were to approve the project, a Resolution of approval would have to be prepared and brought back for adoption after the January 23 deadline. However, State law also says that if there is a revised application a new clock commences. He stated that the applicant submitted a revised plan on January 11 but requested that it not be considered a revised application. He noted that if the applicant agrees to consider the new plan a revised application, a new 60-day time period would commence.

Chairman Lyon re-opened the public hearing.

John Koos disagreed with Mr. Rojas in that he felt the Planning Commission did have the option to approve the project despite the recommendation of denial from staff. He also felt the Planning Commission could find the project categorically exempt from CEQA requirements in that the applicant was proposing the mono-pine.

Commissioner Long understood the discretion that the Planning Commission had but asked Mr. Koos if he wanted to force the Planning Commission to make a decision on the project now even if they felt the staff report was correct and the necessary findings could not be made; or did he want to start a new clock to give the applicant and staff more time to gather and present information such that the Planning Commission could make the findings necessary to approve the project.

Commissioner Cartwright felt that the Planning Commission had concerns about the project and would like to work with Verizon to resolve these concerns. He felt that anything that could be done to improve service on the south side of the peninsula deserves consideration, however the concerns of the neighbors were significant and must be considered. He did not feel Mr. Koos had done an exhaustive search of alternative locations at the site, much less other areas. Therefore, if forced to vote tonight, he would vote to deny the application. However, he hoped the applicant would consider the revised plan as a new application and continue to work with staff to find alternative locations and solutions for the proposal.

Mr. Koos felt it was a procedural matter and agreed to consider the revised plan submitted on January 11 as a new application.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that he would like the applicant to come back at the next meeting and state that they had looked at the entire property and made every effort to locate the antenna in the best possible location.

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

Chairman Lyon stated explained that the Commission now had more options available. He felt the Planning Commission wanted to accommodate the concerns of the citizens as well as try to help Verizon provide the service they wanted to provide in a manner that is not offensive to the residents. In looking at different locations, he felt it was important not to trade one set of owners concerns with another set of owners concerns and asked Verizon to be sensitive to that when looking at alternate sites.

Commissioner Mueller asked if there were any locations on the property that did not obstruct some type of view, or was the Planning Commission asking the applicant to find a location that did not exist.

Director/Secretary Rojas felt there were locations on the property where a pole or antenna could be placed that would not impair a view or impact the residents. He stated that staff would work with the applicant in looking at alternate sites.

Chairman Lyon felt that the pole could go higher than 30 feet if going higher would allow the pole to be placed in an area that would eliminate view and noise concerns from the residents.

Director/Secretary Rojas suggested the application be continued to a date certain. He noted that since the applicant requested at least 45 days to explore alternate locations the item be brought back to the Planning commission at their March 26 meeting.

Commissioner Long moved to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 2002, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (5-0).


NEW BUSINESS



6. Neighborhood Compatibility Update


Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He stated that a draft Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook had been prepared and the document was before the Commission for review. He stated that staff recommends review of the handbook for content and format and provide staff with further direction.

Chairman Lyon felt the Commission should discuss the draft document, however recommend not taking any definitive action on the publication until the Neighborhood Compatibility Steering-Committee has had a chance to meet and make their decisions.

Commissioner Long felt that when discussing neighborhood compatibility, the term "neighborhood" should be defined. He felt that there was no clear definition of neighborhood and it might be useful to have somewhere a set of criteria that deals with the issue of defining what is the neighborhood.

Director/Secretary Rojas felt that was an excellent suggestion, but felt that it should wait until the Neighborhood Compatibility Steering-Committee has finished with its findings. He stated that the handbook attempts to illustrate the existing guidelines and code and not propose any changes. He explained that the Neighborhood Compatibility Steering-Committee may propose changes to the guidelines and code. He noted that the definition of neighborhood could currently be found in the Height Variation Guidelines.

Commissioner Cartwright suggested the document explain why the guidelines were needed and an overall picture of why the City uses these guidelines. He explained that when he read the document he found it difficult to visualize how a resident new to the community put this document into perspective. He also felt that the document was a little hard to read and referred to the document from Pacific Grove which was easy to read and offered different size prints, large pictures, and various graphics. He felt the Pacific Grove document was very easy to read and these techniques should be incorporated into the Rancho Palos Verdes document.

Commissioner Cartwright felt it would be helpful for the steering-committee to have a copy of the draft document for informational purposes only.

Chairman Lyon suggested tabling the item until the sub-committee had met. The Commission agreed.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS


Commissioner Long asked that at the next meeting an item be added to the agenda to discuss ways to summarize Planning Commission decisions by creating some type of institutional memory file. He felt this could consist of one-paragraph summaries of the decisions that one made by the Commission immediately after the decision was made.

The Commission agreed to agendize the item for the next Planning Commission meeting.


ADJOURNMENT


The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.


RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:



CONTINUED BUSINESS:





2. HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT NO. 938: Lane Building Designs (applicant) and Jeffrey and Laurie Younggren, (owner), 4362 Exultant Drive. (BY)

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2002

SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 938 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 9202 (YOUNGGREN, 4362 EXULTANT DRIVE)

Staff Coordinator: Beilin Yu, Assistant Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-__, denying without prejudice Height Variation Permit No. 938 and approve, with conditions, Site Plan Review No. 9202.

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2001, the City Council approved Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 40 to allow the submittal of the necessary Planning Department applications to request approval for a 597 square foot garage, 474 square foot first story addition, and a 1,251 square foot second story addition.

On July 26, 2001, Height Variation Permit No. 938 and Site Plan Review No. 9202 were submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for processing. The request was for the construction of a 1,071 square foot first-story addition, which includes a 597 square foot garage, and the construction of a new 1,251 square foot second story addition.

This item was scheduled and heard at the December 11, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. At the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the item and expressed concerns in regards to view impairment that the proposed additions would have on 4343 Dauntless Drive, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy and density issues as they relate to the homes on the downslope side. As such, the Planning Commission continued this item to the January 22, 2002 meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to work with Staff and redesign the proposed additions and address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission.

On January 17, 2002, the applicant requested a continuance from the January 22, 2002 meeting to allow them more time to redesign the proposed additions. At the January 22, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission continued this item to the February 12, 2002 meeting.

On January 25, 2002 the applicant submitted revised plans. The revised plans include a reduction in size to the first and second story additions and revisions to the roof design. Staff’s analysis of the revisions is discussed in the Discussion Section below.

On December 20, 2001, the applicants submitted an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act, therefore the new deadline for a decision is March 18, 2002.

DISCUSSION

VIEW IMPAIRMENT

In order to address the view concerns raised by Staff and the Planning Commission, the applicant revised the design of the proposed additions by setting back the first-story addition an additional 3’-0" from the front property line, and the second story an additional 9’-0" from the front property line. Additionally, instead of a gable roof over the proposed second story addition, the applicant is proposing a hip roof.

On February 4, 2002, the applicant revised the silhouette on the subject property to reflect the proposed revisions. Staff conducted a site inspection to analyze the view impact the new design would have on 4343 Dauntless Drive. Based upon the site inspection, it is Staff’s opinion that the revisions to the first and second story are relatively minor when viewed from 4343 Dauntless Drive and although the revised project would create less impacts than the previous proposal, Staff believes that there is still significant view impairment. The second story addition still projects beyond the front of the existing roof and into the view corridor of 4343 Dauntless Drive, significantly impairing the ocean view from 4343 Dauntless Drive. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed additions will still significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.

Additionally, Staff is of the opinion that granting of the proposed second-story addition will cause significant cumulative view impairment, because as stated in the last staff report, the residential structures within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project located on Dauntless Drive are constructed on pad lots at higher elevations than the properties located on Exultant Drive with ocean views oriented toward the south and west. Exclusive of foliage, the residence at 4343 Dauntless Drive has a view over the rooflines of the residences located on Exultant Drive. Therefore, if other properties on Exultant Drive propose similar second story additions, Staff believes that such additions would result in significant cumulative view impairment from 4343 Dauntless Drive and most likely from other properties located on Dauntless Drive.

Staff is of the opinion that there may be other ways to design the second-story addition, which will minimize impairment of view. As stated in the last staff report, Staff is of the opinion that if the second story addition was reduced in size and limited toward the rear of the property, over the existing garage, the second story addition will be located behind the existing roof ridgelines, as viewed from the properties located on Dauntless Drive and therefore minimize view impairment.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY

As mentioned in the background section above, the applicant was originally proposing to construct a 1,071 square foot first story addition, which included a 597 square foot garage and a new 1,251 square foot second story addition. As part of the revision to the plans, the applicant decreased the first story addition to 1,015 square feet, which now includes a 581 square foot garage, and the second story addition to 1,122 square feet. This is a reduction of 185 square feet in the total addition area. Table 1 summarizes the difference from the original proposal and the revised proposal.

Table 1

Original Proposal

Revised Proposal

Difference between original and revised proposal

Existing Residence

2,744 sq.ft.

2,744 sq.ft.

-

First Story & Garage

1,071 sq.ft.

1,015 sq.ft.

<56 sq.ft.>

Second Story

1,251 sq.ft.

1,122 sq.ft.

<129 sq.ft.>

Total Structure Size

5,066 sq.ft.

4,881 sq.ft.

<185 sq.ft.>


Additionally, the applicant is proposing to setback the first story addition an additional 3’-0" from the front property line and the second story an additional 9’-0" from the front property line, and change the gable roof over the proposed second story addition to a hip roof.

In accordance with the Development Code’s definition of "neighborhood character", the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis is based on the following criteria of review: the scale of the surrounding residences, architectural style, and front yard setbacks. More specifically, to determine whether or not a proposed addition is compatible with the existing neighborhood character, Staff compares the project to existing structures within the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the 10 closest properties. However, at the December 11, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to analyze homes beyond the immediate neighborhood, since the Seaview Neighborhood seems to be a neighborhood in transition.

As such, table 2 below shows the homes in the immediate neighborhood (ten closest homes) and table 3 shows homes beyond the immediate neighborhood, with similar scale as the proposed structure. For building permits without an original garage size, to account for the garage size for the purposes of the Neighborhood Compatibility Finding, it is the Director’s policy to base the garage area on the current Development Code, which is two garage spaces of 9’X20’. The building permits for some of the properties listed below (marked with an *) did not include the garage size, therefore Staff added 360 square foot to the structure sizes found in the building permits in file. Also attached to this report is a vicinity map showing the location of all of the lots in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2

Address

Lot Size**

Structure Size (existing)

No. of Stories

Front Yard Setback

4331 Dauntless Drive

12,090 sq.ft.

2,355 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4332 Dauntless Drive

12,103 sq.ft.

2,857 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4343 Dauntless Drive

12,090 sq.ft.

2,581 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4351 Dauntless Drive

12,090 sq.ft.

2,206 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4361 Dauntless Drive

12,210 sq.ft.

2,596 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4380 Dauntless Drive

12,050 sq.ft.

2,961 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4321 Exultant Drive

12,000 sq.ft.

2,907 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4338 Exultant Drive

12,010 sq.ft.

2,816 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4348 Exultant Drive

12,810 sq.ft.

1,990 sq.ft. *

One

20’

4354 Exultant Drive

12,060 sq.ft.

2,934 sq.ft. *

One

20’

Average

12,142 sq.ft.

2,620 sq.ft.

One

20’

4362 Exultant Drive

12,000 sq.ft.

2,744 sq.ft.
(existing w/ garage)

One

19’-4"

4,881 sq.ft.
(new proposal w/ garage)

Two

19’-4"


* The building permits for these structures did not include the garage, therefore, 360 square foot was added to the structure size.

** The lot sizes indicated in this column are based on information obtained from the Los Angles County Tax Roll (TRW database).

Table 3

Address

Lot Size**

Structure Size (existing)

No. of Stories

Front Yard Setback

4005 Admirable Drive

12,090 sq.ft.

3,713 sq.ft. *

Two

20’

4022 Admirable Drive

12,103 sq.ft.

3,947 sq.ft. *

Two

20’

4040 Admirable Drive

12,090 sq.ft.

4,778 sq.ft.

Two

20’

4048 Admirable Drive

12,090 sq.ft.

4,947 sq.ft. *

Two

20’

4364 Admirable Drive

12,210 sq.ft.

4,122 sq.ft.

Two

20’

3945 Dauntless Drive

13,366 sq.ft.

3,886 sq.ft.

Two

20’

4305 Dauntless Drive

12,088 sq.ft.

4,697 sq.ft. *

Two

20’

3943 Exultant Drive

11,996 sq.ft.

3,910 sq.ft. *

Two

20’

4139 Exultant Drive

11,278 sq.ft.

3,677 sq.ft. *

Two

20’

32203 Schooner Drive

17,829 sq.ft.

3,498 sq.ft. *

Two

20’

Average

12,714 sq.ft.

4,118 sq.ft.

One

20’

4362 Exultant Drive

12,000 sq.ft.

2,744 sq.ft.
(existing w/ garage)

One

19’-4"

4,881 sq.ft.
(new proposal w/ garage)

Two

19’-4"


* The building permits for these structures did not include the garage, therefore, 360 square foot was added to the structure size.

** The lot sizes indicated in this column are based on information obtained from the Los Angles County Tax Roll (TRW database).

1) Scale of surrounding properties, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.

As stated in the attached December 11, 2001 Staff Report, Staff found that the original proposed structure size, at 5,066 square feet was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. The applicant revised the additions and reduced the size of the proposed structure by 185 square feet, for a proposed structure size of 4,881 square feet. When compared to the immediate neighborhood discussed in the original Staff Report (the 10 closest properties – table 2), Staff believes that the reduced structure would still not be compatible with the immediate neighborhood because the size of the proposed structure would still be 2,137 square feet larger than the average structure size of the immediate neighborhood (table 2).

However, at the Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 2001, the Planning Commission directed Staff to analyze the neighborhood compatibility with other homes in the Seaview neighborhood. As such, Staff found other homes in the Seaview neighborhood with similar scale as the proposed structure, as shown in table 3. According to table 3, the total structure sizes (including garage area) of the ten (10) homes in the neighborhood with similar scale as the proposed structure range from 3,498 square feet to 4,947 square feet, with an average size of 4,118 square feet. As previously mentioned, the subject residence is currently 2,744 square feet (garage included). After the proposed addition is constructed, the total size of the structure (garage area included) will be 4,881 square feet. In relation to the neighboring properties (table 3), the subject residence will be approximately 763 square feet larger than the average structure size and will be 66 square feet smaller than the largest home in the Seaview neighborhood (4048 Admirable Drive).

Additionally, the applicant revised the proposed project so that the proposed additions are setback further away from the front property line. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to set the front façade of the second story away from the front façade of the first story addition, therefore, creating additional articulation and reducing the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed structure.

As such, Staff is of the opinion that the scale of the proposed residence is consistent with the scale found in the Seaview neighborhood because the proposed structure size is within the range of the homes found in the neighborhood.

No accessory structures are proposed with this project, therefore this portion of this finding does not apply.

2) Architectural styles, including facade treatment, structure height, open space between structure, roof designs, the apparent bulk and mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials.

As noted in the attached December 11, 2001 Staff Report, Staff found that the proposed two story residence was not compatible with the architectural style of the immediate neighborhood because the immediate neighborhood is comprised mainly of one-story homes and the previous proposal did not incorporate articulation between the first and second story addition, increasing the apparent bulk and mass of the structure.

However, when Staff expanded the neighborhood compatibility analysis to homes outside of the immediate neighborhood, Staff found other homes that are two story with similar façade treatment and architectural design as the proposed structure. Many of the two-story homes have the second-story located above the garage, similar to the design proposed by the applicants. The two-story homes also have a combination of gable and hip roof designs.

As discussed above, the applicant revised the project and set the second-story addition back 6’-0" away from the first, therefore adding articulation to the proposed structure, and added a hip roof over the second story instead of a gable roof. The proposed second story addition is proposed to be located over the garage, similar to the design of the other two-story homes found in the neighborhood. The roof design is also a combination of hip and gable roofs, therefore compatible with the neighborhood.

The homes in the neighborhood consist mainly of stucco finish with wood siding or brick details. The roof material is mainly wood shake, rock roof, and red tile roof. The existing structure has a stucco finish with wood siding and asphalt shingle roof material. The applicant is proposing stucco and custom veneer, which are finish materials found in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed finish materials will be consistent with the finish materials found in the surrounding neighborhood.

Based on the analysis in Findings No. 1) and 2), Staff determined that the proposed addition will be compatible with the existing neighborhood because the proposed structure will be within the scale of the homes found in the Seaview neighborhood, and the design of the proposed second story will be compatible with the other two-story homes found in the neighborhood.

PRIVACY AND DENSITY

At the December 11, 2001 meeting the Planning Commission directed Staff to review the proposed addition in accordance to the downslope lots located to the west of the subject property. Staff conducted a site inspection and found that the proposed addition will not overwhelm the residences to the west, even though the properties to the west are located on a lower pad elevation. The proposed second story addition is proposed to be setback 34.4’ away from the rear property line, which is twice as long as the required rear yard setback, therefore maintaining sufficient open space from the rear property line and the other residences.

As stated in the last staff report, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed second story addition will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the neighbors to the rear because the subject property currently contains a deck in the rear yard that overlooks the properties to the rear. Therefore, the proposed addition will not result in additional infringement of privacy.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the above analysis, although Staff determined that the neighborhood compatibility concerns have been addressed with the revisions, the view impairment concerns of the Planning Commission and Staff have not been addressed. Specifically, as noted in the December 11, 2001 Staff Report and as discussed above, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project is inconsistent with the following three (3) findings for granting a Height Variation.

Finding No. 4 – that the proposed addition when considered exclusive of foliage, does significantly impair a view from the viewing area of 4343 Dauntless Drive,

Finding No. 5 – that there is significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting of this height variation application, and

Finding No. 6 – that the structure is not designed in such a manner as to minimize impairment of view.

Therefore, Staff recommends adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2002-__, denying without prejudice Height Variation Permit No. 938, and approving Site Plan Review No. 9202.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:

  1. Approve Height Variation Permit No. 938 and Site Plan Review No. 9202, with conditions, and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate P.C. Resolution and conditions of approval for Planning Commission consideration at the next meeting.
  2. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
  3. Deny with prejudice.

ATTACHMENTS

  • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2002-__
  • Conditions of Approval for Site Plan Review No. 9202
  • Staff Report from December 11, 2001
  • Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 2001
  • Floor plan and Site Plan
  • Vicinity Map showing neighboring properties

PUBLIC HEARINGS: (NO ITEMS)



NEW BUSINESS:



3. CREATION OF AN INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY FILE: (PC)


TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2002

SUBJECT: CREATION OF AN INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY FILE

RECOMMENDATION

Provide Staff with direction.

DISCUSSION

At the January 22, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission agreed to place this item on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Long. Commissioner Long’s suggestion is for the Commission to discuss ways to summarize Planning Commission decisions by creating some type of "institutional memory" file. He felt that this could be accomplished by creating one-paragraph summaries of Commission decisions. This file could then be used as a resource for ascertaining the actions of previous Commissions on specific applications.

Notwithstanding any Planning Commission suggestions, Staff believes that there are a couple of options for creating such a memory file. One would be to use the existing Follow-up agenda that is already created after each Planning Commission meeting and simply be more descriptive in the actions taken. The other approach would be to create and maintain an electronic table file that would contain descriptive Commission actions sorted by type of application. The table file would then be updated after each Planning Commission meeting.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:


Staff



4. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 2002.


PLANNING COMMISSION
PRE-AGENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002


CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 2002


CONTINUED BUSINESS:



2. HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT NO. 930, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2279 AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 596 : 6528 Nancy Road / Letvin (AM)


A request to allow the demolition of an existing one-story residence in order to accommodate the construction of a new 3,921 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, at a proposed height of 26 feet, as measured from the lowest finished grade covered by structure to the highest roof ridgeline. Additionally, the applicant requests a Minor Exception Permit to allow a portion of the proposed balcony to project 1’-9" into the required 20 foot front yard setback, thereby maintaining an 18’-3" setback for the balcony, and a Grading Permit to allow 605 cubic yards of grading (285 cubic yards of removal and recompaction included) to accommodate the new residence.


PUBLIC HEARINGS: (NO ITEMS)



3. COASTAL PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. ZON2001-00032: 120 Spindrift Lane / Maniscalco (BY)


A request to allow the construction of a new carport and a 535 square foot addition to the residence over the new carport, which will abut the front and side property lines. The proposed addition is proposed at a height of 20.00’,measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade (102.84’) to the top of the highest ridge (122.84’), and 13.52’, as measured from the highest elevation of existing pad covered by structure (109.32’) to the highest ridge. A Variance is required to encroach into the required front and side setbacks, to maintain the existing lot coverage which exceeds that allowed by the Development Code, and to waive the City’s requirement for a garage containing two enclosed parking spaces. The improvements are proposed on a property located within the Appealable portion of the City’s Coastal Zone.


NEW BUSINESS:



4. REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING FOR HOMES ON CURVED ROADS (PC).


A request by the Planning Commission to consider whether a special review procedure should be implemented for exterior lighting for homes on curved roads.

*Please note that that the actual Agenda may well expand, or possibly contract, based upon conditions (such as Continuances of public hearings, Withdrawals, etc.) prior to this meeting.

Commission


ADJOURNMENT:


The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
February 26, 2002, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.