Loading...
PC MINS 19910625MINUTES -- -� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 25, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 6:43 p.m. by Chairman Von Hagen at Hesse Community Park, 29341 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Commissioners Brooks, Hotchkiss (arrived at 6:50 p.m.), Katherman, McNulty, Chairman Von Hagen ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, and Assistant Planner Donna Jerex. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen acknowledged receipt of the approved minutes of the May 14, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Brooks requested a revision to page 5 of the May 28, 1991 minutes. The last sentence of the fifth paragraph should read: "She favored the staff recommendation of 61 lots, or the specific language from the Staff Report if different." Commissioner Katherman moved approval of the Consent Calendar as revised, Chairman Von Hagen seconded and the motion passed without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 298; Kenneth Associate Planner Terry and Susan Erickson, 6329 Silverman presented the Staff Villa Rosa Report regarding the applicant's request to allow after -the -fact approval of an aluminum patio enclosure located approximately 8' from the rear property line and after -the -fact approval of the patio trellis covers located within the side and rear setback areas. Staff's recommendation is to partially approve the application with conditions. No correspondence has been received from neighbors. Chairman Von Hagen declared the public hearing open. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 Kenneth Erickson, 6329 Villa Rosa, stated that the aluminum enclosure was existing when he purchased the house in 1973. They made repairs and in the process built a trellis patio cover. He said he has no objections to removing part of the trellis but would like to keep a portion of it and maintain the 15' setback in the rear. Ms. Silverman stated that staff would have no objections to that provided that it would encroach no more than 3-1/2 feet into the side setback. Upon testimony from Mr. Erickson that he was under the impression that the structure was legal when he purchased the house, Commissioner Katherman stated he would like to see the City adopt a procedure to do a code check to make sure that all improvements are legally permitted when a property is purchased. Mr. Erickson said he had received no complaints from neighbors about the structure. Kinko Kurohara, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, stated that her yard faces the Ericksons' rear yard and the trellis is distracting because of the prominence of the wood members of the patio. She would like to see it covered with foliage. She also mentioned that when the Ericksons have a party in their aluminum patio enclosure it is very noisy. Ms. Kurohara presented photographs of the patio taken from her yard. Commissioner Katherman suggested landscaping to cover the trellis. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNulty moved to grant the variance provided that the applicant remove 50 percent of the patio cover that extends toward the rear yard setback (cutting it back from 17 feet to 8 feet). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss. The public hearing was reopened to allow the applicant to make a statement. Mr. Erickson indicated that landscaping is planned which will cover the beams going up the sides and across the top of the trellis with vines. The public hearing was again closed. Commissioner McNulty withdrew his motion and various options were discussed. Commissioner McNulty moved to grant the variance allowing the structure to encroach four feet into the rear yard setback, the application to be approved subject to Conditions 1, 3 and 4, and iq PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 Condition 2 to be revised to: "Within 60 days of this approval, the second patio cover (Structure 3) shall be cut back to one- half its existing depth." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss and passed without objection. B. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 413 - APPEAL, VARIANCE NO. 294; Basant Garg, 28319 Plainfield. audience who wished to testify. No Staff Report was supplied because a continuance to July 9 was requested by the applicant. The public hearing was opened for members of the Mrs. George Griese, 28331 Plainfield Drive, opposed granting the permit because the applicant did not obtain permission to build the block wall and fence, which she considers an eyesore, and she feels the City should require residents to follow the rules. Leonard Lucafo, 28319 Hazelridge Drive, objected on the basis of view impairment to a neighbor's house when the wall is completed. Jacqueline Lucafo, 28319 Hazelridge Drive, said she received a notice of this hearing and asked who else was notified. Director Benard replied that 40 neighbors were notified based on their proximity to the applicant's residence. Calls advising of the continuance were made to those individuals who had expressed an interest in the project through phone calls or correspondence. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved the public hearing be continued to July 9, 1991, Commissioner Brooks seconded and the motion passed without objection. A short break was taken at 7:27 to permit Kajima representatives to set up for their scheduled 7:30 hearing. The meeting was reconvened at 7:35 p.m. and it was agreed to hear the New Business item before the final public hearing. NEW BUSINESS A. GRADING NO. 1519; John Commissioner McNulty excused Mavar, 2 Mustang Road himself from participation in this application due to its proximity to his home. commissioner Katherman stated that he also lives near the project but not within 500 feet and did not feel a need to abstain from participation. 3 0- 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 Assistant Planner Donna Jerex presented the Staff Report regarding the applicant's request to allow grading for construction of a new single family residence. Staff's recommendation is to direct the applicant to work with Staff on redesigning the project. John Mavar, 2152 Stonewood Court, San Pedro, spoke on behalf of his father (the applicant). He said the proposed location of the house on the lot requires moving approximately 450 cubic yards of dirt, substantially less than the original proposal for 800 cubic yards. He claimed his proposal maximizes the view, provides for a private yard area removed from the view of the neighboring homes, is compatible with the existing neighboring homes, and eliminates any need for removal of trees. The applicant feels that staff's recommendation of placing the house on the flat portion of the lot, with the pool and yard on the sloped area would give no privacy in the yard. In addition, this would require a larger footprint, would probably require removal of some trees, would require more grading, would place the pool next to the driveway, and would minimize the view. He requested that the submitted plans be accepted by the Planning Commission. John Vilicich, 1622 S. Gaffey Street, San Pedro (the applicant's architect), presented a sketch of the staff recommendation showing the house on the flat area. He expressed his willingness to work with Staff but felt their plan did not make sense because it would require removing trees, eliminate the applicant's privacy, and obstruct the neighbors' view of the Vincent Thomas bridge. Various options were discussed by the Commissioners, including moving the driveway and motor court further away from the neighbor's house, stepping the house into the slope to minimize grading and reducing the size of the lower floor. The footprint of the structure was basically acceptable except that the garages should be relocated further upslope in front, toward the southwest corner and closer to the street. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved approval of Alternative 3 of the staff recommendation, with grading for the residence to be minimized, the house to be stepped with the slope and the garage to be relocated to the southwest corner. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katherman and passed without objection. 4 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 46651, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 151, GRADING NO. 1389: Kajima, Crest/Highridge residential development with common recommendation is for certification the tract map to the City Council, conditional use permit and grading 0 Associate Planner Terry Silverman summarized the modifications to the Staff Report regarding the applicant's request to approve a 71 lot single family open space. Staff's of the EIR and approval of and approval of the permit. Ms. Silverman noted that the applicant has proposed limiting the height of 14 structures throughout the project to 16 feet in order to maintain views. She said that Staff would like to restrict an additional six lots to single story, and noted that Lot 30 should be included in the list of lots to be restricted. Staff recommends that 20 structures be designated as single story (28%), 18 as split level (25%) and 33 as two story (47%). Issues yet to be resolved include the width of Rue du Vouvray (the Director of Public Works recommends 341), hydrology and geotechnical issues. As the Department of Public Works has expressed an interest in providing a debris basin to offset or reduce the need for the proposed detention basin, the Conditions of Approval for the project require the installation of a debris basin unless the developer can prove that it would not be necessary. Two additional borings are recommended in the Mitigation Measures for the EIR, and if potential slope failure is found to exist the developer will need to prepare a means to stabilize the slope to the satisfaction of the City. Draft copies of the EIR were given to Planning Commissioners on Friday, and the final copies including minor word modifications and clarifications were distributed at this meeting. In reply to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Benard indicated the six lots which the'applicant would like designated for two story homes and Staff recommends a 16 foot limit are Lots 15, 16, 21, 30, 35 and 36. Ms. Silverman stated the average lot size is 15,500 square feet and the minimum is 13,000 square feet. Chairman Von Hagen declared the public hearing open. Timi Hallem, 355 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles (attorney for the applicant), reviewed the open issues contained in her letter of June 25. Several have already been discussed with Staff and settled. Senior Planner Carolynn Petru clarified that the 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 developer is to realign only those portions of the Crooked Patch Trail which are on the Kajima property. Ms. Hallem said the developer would like not to provide a four foot parkway on the Crest Road side of Rue du Vouvray since there are no houses and no utilities on that side of the road. In the CUP resolution, the Staff defined the protected view as the ocean and the view of Catalina, whereas the developer feels it should be the Catalina view only. In the CUP Conditions (F.2) it was agreed to change the wording in the third line to the "workable phase of the site as depicted in the approved construction plan." Agreed changes to J.9 were read by Ms. Silverman. The issue of fencing was discussed and Ms. Hallem indicated that the developer feels that should be the responsibility of the individual homeowners. To the extent that fencing is required, they would like it to be required only phase by phase. Staff wants standard fencing to avoid a wide variety of types. Side yard fencing is to be left to the discretion of the residents as long as they comply with City regulations. Regarding the question of an offsite debris basin and/or an onsite detention basin, Ms. Hallem stated the developer is willing to provide one or the other, but a requirement to complete them both before a certificate of occupancy is granted seems unreasonable. Mary Nastronero, PSOMAS and Associates, 3420 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, described the four view corridors through the project and presented slides showing the views that would be obtained with their suggested layout. On the subject of fencing, she felt that should be the burden of the homeowner but would prefer no fencing to preserve the rural atmosphere. If fencing is desired she suggested it be a predetermined type through a uniform CC&R requirement. Ms. Nastronero expressed concern about the 120 days provided for final plan submission and asked when it began. Director Benard clarified that the clock would not start until the project is approved, and the City Council has to act on the tentative map first. He said the language could be amended to require final plan submission prior to receiving approval of the first construction permit. Charles Abbott, representing the Public works Department, advised that past flooding in McCarrell Canyon was caused by debris blocking the drains rather than the volume of water. He said that further studies need to be made to determine whether a T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 debris basin or detention basin is needed, or both. A debris basin should be down the canyon as far as possible. Director Benard noted that language should be added to address securing proper easements and additional funds from other contributing landowners. Asked by Commissioner Katherman if L.A. County Flood Control is responsible for maintenance of debris basins throughout the county and if there is a schedule, Mr. Abbott replied that the only ones he knows of are in Barkentine Canyon and Flood Control checks them annually. He added his contention that if only one type of improvement could be provided, a debris basin downstream is the most important. Mr. Benard commented that studies are ongoing. Mr. Abbott reported that the Department of Public Works recommends that all streets be 34 feet wide. RECESS AND RECONVENE A 10 -minute break was called at 9:30 p.m. Mary Nastronero stated that the developer is taking 42 acres out of debris production and the remaining acreage below the debris basin totals only 13 acres to contribute to debris, so a proportionate share to be required of the developer is more reasonable than the entire cost. Yaw Agyakwa (Geologist with EIP Associates), 80 South Lake Avenue, Pasadena, stated that all CEQA requirements have been satisfied and all geologic and geotechnical reports agree that the ancient slide is stabilized. Two borings have already been made which did not indicate any adverse conditions, and the requirement that a geologist be present so the site can be examined during grading follows professional practices. Regarding the detention basin, Mr. Agyakwa stated that flood control is a regional problem of the City and costs should be shared by anyone who builds within that catchment area, whereas erosion control is a local problem which involves a specific site and should be the responsibility of the applicant. He said the requirement for a second well to monitor water levels is in the Mitigation Measures as needed only if the first well is not sufficient. Kimberly Avila (Project Manager with EIP Associates) clarified the wells issue. CEQA requires one monitoring well but the City 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 Public Works Department would like more than one, so that mitigation measure was revised to state that multiple wells may be required. She said the City is responsible for monitoring, and detailed reports are prepared regularly to report to the City Council and the Planning Commission on the status of the mitigation measures. Dianne Alexander, 49 Country Meadow Road, RHE, said she is still concerned with height. She contended that revised tract maps submitted throughout the public hearing process each had different building pad elevations. Map 2 lowered the heights and Map 3 raised them to where in many cases they are higher than on Map 1. Ms. Alexander said the elevations of 21 homes were unchanged on Map 3, 10 were lower and 40 were higher, the average increase being 5 feet. She asked that the elevations be put back to the levels of Map 2 to preserve the views from Crest Road. Terry Silverman reported that her analysis showed that the greatest change in elevation along Rue du Vouvray is 2 feet on Lot 23. Other changes were due to relocation of streets and reconfiguration of lots but all are within 1 to 2 feet of the lots on Rue du Vouvray and she felt the views would not be significantly affected. Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, expressed his concern about the downslope height of the split level homes being changed from 23 feet to 30 feet. He said he believes the grading on the site is excessive and unnecessary for a single family development. Maude Landon, 34 Santa Barbara Drive, speaking for the Island View Homeowners Association, recommended that another traffic study be conducted at night when the fog is often quite thick on Highridge at Crest. She recommended that the traffic light be moved from Highridge to Country Meadow. sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, mentioned that in three places a 101 trail easement is called for, and the City standard is 151. She said that a 101 easement may be excessive for the Crooked Patch Trail since it is next to the other trail and will impact the open area there. She noted there is a culvert opening in the back of Lot 57 which seems to be in the middle of the trail. She suggested that curb cuts be included where the trails cross the street, or that rolled curbs be specified instead of vertical curbs. Carole Black, 5964 Ocean Terrace, stated she represents some of the homeowners in Seacrest and they feel the traffic study is inadequate. She cited the dense fog at Highridge and Crest, and suggested the demand light be moved to Country Meadow. She also 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 requested that the minimum lot size of 13,000 be enlarged. Commissioner Katherman advised that the Planning Commission had concerns about the location of the demand light and the Traffic Committee recommended the Highridge location on the basis of safety considerations. Chairman Von Hagen suggested Ms. Black address her comments to the Traffic Committee. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Mallon Drive, expressed her concerns about the traffic situation on the Peninsula and the increases in traffic that will be created by the Kajima project as well as the others now being planned. She asked that the number of units in the project be lowered. Director Benard advised that the problem intersections she mentioned are located in other Peninsula cities because of their decisions not to improve their roadway systems. Chairman Von Hagen suggested Ms. Kelly express her views to the Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates City Councils and Traffic Commissions. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, read excerpts from CEQA regarding responsibilities of citizens and the City, asserting that the EIR could not be approved at this meeting because Commissioners were just given the final copy at this meeting and therefore had no opportunity to read it. RECESS AND RECONVENE A five-minute break was called at 10:50 p.m. Director Benard read into the record some changes discussed earlier regarding detention and the debris basin: On page 3 of the Mitigation Measures, delete paragraph 3 under 5.3 HYDROLOGY and replace it with the following: 3. The project proponent shall conduct a hydrology study to determine adverse impacts to natural drainage on the subject property located downslope from the proposed detention basin, and if necessary provide the City with a design, to be approved by the City, necessary to eliminate any such impacts. The City Engineer shall determine whether an offsite debris basin is needed. If the City Engineer determines that an onsite detention basin is needed, the project proponent shall construct it. If the City determines that an offsite debris basin is appropriate, the project proponent shall bond or deposit with the City its share of the costs thereof as determined by the City Engineer including but not limited to design, and the City shall obtain all necessary easements and contributions from 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 other property owners. Such debris basin shall be designed and constructed to Los Angeles County Flood Control District standards. Under Time of Implementation delete "Prior to grading of residential lots" and insert "Ongoing." On page 4 of the Tentative Tract Conditions of Approval, fifth line of Condition 1, replace "debris rack" with "debris basin." At the end of Condition 2, add "consistent with Condition G.1.11 Commissioner McNulty moved that the public hearing be continued to July 9. Commissioner Katherman seconded the motion and a lengthy discussion was held. Director Benard reported that no substantive changes have been made in the final EIR other than typical editing changes and typographical errors. Commissioner Katherman felt the final tract plan should be included in the EIR but Mr. Benard advised that the EIR is used in developing the final tract plan. Commissioner Brooks proposed enlarging lot frontages from 85 feet to 90 feet to meet RS -2 minimum requirements. The proposal was discussed and Chairman Von Hagen pointed out that the General Plan encourages PUDfs instead of conventional subdivisions. Mr. Benard advised that the Commission had previously accepted 851 minimum width with a 90' average and reported that only 45% of the proposed lots are 85 feet, with the others larger. After discussion it was decided to proceed with the development as proposed. Commissioner McNulty's motion was passed on a 3 to 2 roll call vote, with Commissioner Hotchkiss and Chairman Von Hagen dissenting. Items of disagreement between the applicant and Staff were reviewed and discussed. In the Tentative Tract Map Conditions of approval, decisions were made for standard vertical curbs, a 281 width for the former Rue du Vouvray, street lights (if required) should be placed at all intersections and the end of each cul-de- sac, minor wording changes regarding trail easements, and the addition of curb cuts. In the CUP Conditions of Approval, clarifying language was added to Conditions B.1, F.2, J.9, and L.1. In Condition 5.1, building heights for the split level structures were changed to 16 feet upslope/26 feet downslope. Staff recommendations of 16 feet were accepted on the six lots which the applicants requested to be 26 feet. HE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 1991 Commissioner Katherman stated he would like to see the final map that is being approved, showing both approved pad elevations and existing contours. Mary Nastronero clarified that Map 2 was not engineered and showed target elevations only. She said that cut and fill balance operations required raising the lower site. The current plan (Map 3) is balanced and engineered. The question of further modifications to the proposed project was raised again, and Director Benard cautioned that the applicant's rights to due process might be jeopardized if substantive changes are made after several months of moving the project along the approval process. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE None. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Benard reported that the City Manager Commission to schedule Stefanos Polyzoides and invite the Council to attend. July 23 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. 11 would like the Planning to give a presentation was suggested.