Loading...
PC MINS 19910827MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 27, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Chairman Von Hagen at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Commissioners Brooks, Hotchkiss, Katherman, McNulty, Chairman Von Hagen ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Assistant City Attorney Michael Colantuono, Project Planner Nancy Hutar, and Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas and Donna Jerex. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen acknowledged receipt of a letter from Tim Burrell, data from Director Benard regarding Subregion 7, and communications regarding the Development Code revisions. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 7/30/91 Commissioner Hotchkiss moved approval of the Consent Calendar, Commissioner McNulty seconded and the motion passed without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Benard reported that REVISIONS. Consideration although Staff recommended of proposed revisions to closing the public hearing, if the Development Code the commission wished to keep (Title 17 of the RPV it open to allow additional Municipal Code). time for residents to consider the changes, Staff would not object. Project Planner Hutar presented the Staff Report. Chairman Von Hagen commended Ms. Hutar on her work with the subcommittee and Planning Commission meetings. The public hearing was opened. John Beringer, 3412 Seaglen Drive, speaking as President of the RPV Council of Homeowners Associations, objected to the "no appeal" provision of the View Restoration ordinance and 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 questioned the need for the Committee. He felt the remedial grading sections need more study and analysis, complained that the chart on page 12 was illegible, noted that time constraints prevented the study of other concerns, and recommended that further public hearings be held. John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, said he read and studied the entire document. He protested the elimination of the "near view" definition in the View Restoration ordinance; felt that foliage exceeding 161 or the ridgeline "whichever is lower" should be changed to "whichever is higher"; and suggested that the grandfathering of foliage should be to the date Proposition M became law rather than when the lots were created, privacy should be redefined, there should be an appeal process from decisions of the View Restoration Committee, and negotiations between neighbors should be encouraged. Asked by Commissioner Brooks about how much time he felt the public should be given to review the changes, Mr. Sharkey said he felt not many citizens are really interested. Ms. Hutar commented that definitions are being moved to the end of Section 17 of the Development Code. Director Benard pointed out that because Proposition M was a voter initiative, any changes to the ordinance must be made within the context of the purpose and intent of Prop M. Commissioner Brooks moved to continue the public hearing until September 10 to allow additional time for public comment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katherman and passed 3-2. Commissioners Hotchkiss and McNulty dissented on the basis that the revisions were made to clear up inconsistencies, no substantive changes were made, and the public has not shown much interest in the matter. Commenting on the Staff study of residential development standards in similar cities, Commissioner Brooks said she would like to see the City of Rancho Palos Verdes increase its setback requirements to 351 or 401. Chairman Von Hagen felt the average buyer wants the largest home he can get on his lot. Commissioner Brooks said she hears a lot of negative feedback on the idea of clustering homes. A discussion was held of ways to prevent overdevelopment of lots, including increasing setbacks, using percentage of lot coverage guidelines, flexible front yard setbacks, slope density formulas, and second story setbacks. It was decided not to direct Staff to do additional research in this area but to allow the public to 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 provide their input at the public hearing on September 10, which will be fully noticed. RECESS AND RECONVENE - A 3 -minute recess was called at 7:20 p.m., at the conclusion of which Chairman Von Hagen announced the death of Dennis Barr, a candidate for City Council. A moment of silence was observed in remembrance of Mr. Barr. B. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT Director Benard presented the MAP NOS. 50666 AND 50667, Staff Report regarding the TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NOS. applicant's request for 23004 AND 29070, CUP NOS. approval of a 116 lot single 162 AND 163, GRADING family residential development PERMIT NO. 1541, AND with an 18 -hole public golf COASTAL PERMIT NO. 103; course, clubhouse and PVLHC & Zuckerman, maintenance facility with Subregion 7 & S/PVDS. common and public open space. Staff's recommendation is to receive additional testimony and provide Staff with direction, and to continue the public hearing. A photographic view analysis was presented. Commissioner Katherman asked where the open space was on the site and Mr. Benard indicated the locations of the 14.7 acres of common open space and the 23.5 acres of private open space. Dr. Perry Ehlig, 1560 Via Del Rey, South Pasadena (the City geologist), answered questions from Commissioners as to geologic stability and any potential adverse effects of the proposed grading, as outlined in his memorandum of August 27, 1991. He pointed out that the applicant is required to satisfy the concerns of the geotechnical engineer as well as his own before approval can be granted. He is currently waiting for a return response from Converse Consultants in reply to his comments on their report. Regarding the golf course development, Dr. Ehlig said there would be no harm in it as long as the soil is well compacted so that water does not get underground, and there are means for getting any water out that does get in. Commissioner Katherman inquired about the effect on stability of the movement of two million cubic yards of dirt on the site. Dr. Ehlig replied that at this point he is concerned with a basic study of the geology of the area. The detailed grading plan will be reviewed by the soils engineer at the appropriate time. Dr. Ehlig said the real issue is the setback line. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 In response to members of the audience who wished to question Dr. Ehlig, Director Benard explained that it was not appropriate to present Dr. Ehlig in a question and answer format, but anyone who wished to could come to the City to review the geology reports and responses. Michael Mohler, 25200 La Paz, Laguna Hills (representing Palos Verdes Land Holding Company and the Zuckerman entities), stressed that they do not wish to develop unstable property for housing and will not do so. He said he expects their geology report to be delivered to Dr. Ehlig in the next week, and if he is able to respond to it promptly it may be available at the September 10 Planning Commission hearing. If not, he suggested a special community hearing could be held which would deal with geology only. Community input has been received since the August 13 meeting and Mr. Mohler reviewed his meetings with several groups. RSA has suggested additional tests and backup calculations which will resolve the differences existing between the plan and Dr. Ehligts comments on the report. He pointed out the lots that are part of an already approved soils report indicating no impact on existing developments, and those that are still uncertain. Mr. Mohler urged the Commission to address the conclusions in the Staff Report and provide direction to Staff so that conditions of approval may be prepared. He proposed a schedule which included a special public meeting sometime before September 24 so that the entire project could be resolved on the 24th. Stating that the applicants don't want to overpave the area, Mr. Mohler asked the Commission to consider reducing the parking requirements for the clubhouse by up to 50 parking spots. He submitted a series of additional mitigation measures they would be willing to accept, including nurseries on the area, barrier fences, setbacks, and buffers. He referred to concessions they have made as a result of requests from homeowners and said they are continuing to work with the community. Lee Byrd, 3663 Vigilance Drive, agreed with Mr. Mohler's suggestion for a community forum to discuss geology and mentioned concerns about the area east of the Seacliff cul-de-sac. Lawrence Burke, 3437 Palo Vista, said his homeowners association will be meeting to discuss the intersection of PVD South and PVD East and will make a recommendation to the Traffic Committee. They also want to make sure there is adequate pedestrian and bicycle access across the Shoreline Park area. Other concerns 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 are lot density and lot size. He submitted a proposed formula for lot coverage and said that no lots should be smaller than 15,000 square feet. Lynn Robey, 4031 Palos Verdes Drive South, spoke for the Seaview Homeowners Association expressing concerns regarding long-term stability of the area, the possibility of deeper bentonite layers and the need for additional deep borings, shoreline stability, the effects of golf course irrigation, and indemnification of homeowners. Jerald Simon, 4272 Stalwart, also speaking for Seaview, expressed his displeasure that Dr. Ehlig could not answer questions from residents. He pointed out potentially unbuildable areas due to bentonite layers and ancient slides, suggesting that if houses are eliminated the area could be reconfigured so the remaining houses are not so crowded. He felt that trails across the golf course would not be safe for hikers. RECESS AND RECONVENE - A 20 -minute recess was taken at 9:00 p.m. Mary Montgomery, 4105 Maritime Road, has lived in the Portuguese Bend area since 1950 and has had her house moved because of the landslide. She brought newspapers showing the damage caused by the slide. Ms. Montgomery said she walks along the cliffs and has watched fissures developing as the area breaks apart. She reminded the Commission of the dire consequences to the community of a landslide. John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, disagreed with Staff's determination of how to compute open space requirements, objected to the density of the homes, and questioned the stability of the site and the amount of roads planned. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, asserted that the planned golf course is a violation of the Coastal Specific Plan and SOC 2000 will appeal it to the Coastal Commission if it gets past the City Council. She urged the Planning Commission to stop consideration of the project now. Michael Mohler clarified the mathematics regarding open space and roads objected to by Mr. Sharkey. He said that Dr. Ehlig did review the Tentative Tract Map, which contained a grading "scheme," but the grading plan is not firm at this time. He reiterated the need for a special session on geology so that terms can be defined and the public can understand the issues. Material will be furnished concerning trails within golf course areas in the Monterey and Carmel areas. He agreed that minimum 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 15,000 square foot lots are appropriate and said the applicants will accept that recommendation. Mr. Mohler said they will give a geotechnical presentation at the September 10 hearing and hope the Commission will adjourn to a special hearing between the 10th and the 23rd to hear geology only. Commissioner McNulty moved to continue the public hearing to 7:30 p.m. on September 10, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded and the motion passed without objection. Open space requirements and definitions were discussed. Commissioner Katherman felt that open space should be available to the general community, so that pedestrian and bicycle trails would qualify but not a golf course. Other Commissioners spoke for the popularity of the sport, the benefit to the community, and the safety of trails through golf courses. Mr. Benard pointed out that the golf course is no longer included as open space in the calculations. Trails Committee recommendations were considered to be good, with details to be refined. Some kind of security fencing will be required along the bluff. The development will have more public access to the bluffs and tide pools than currently exists. Commissioner Brooks commended Mr. Burke and agreed with his recommendation of a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. Consensus was reached on acceptability of the specified setbacks and lot coverage, and articulation of second stories. Regarding circulation, the applicant originally proposed a single purpose coastal access road but Staff recommended that it be used by residents for access, thereby permitting self -policing as well as the ability to reduce pad elevations and eliminate some internal streets. Elimination of the coastal bluff road was discussed due to potential crime considerations but it was agreed that the City Council would demand its inclusion. Director Benard said Staff would do some more research and analysis on this. Director Benard stated the applicants have met most of his grading concerns. Regarding the acceptability of export, Commissioners agreed that balanced cut and fill is preferable but export may be desirable for view preservation and the primary consideration is safety. The request of the applicants for a reduction in required parking spaces because of double counting was considered reasonable and Staff was directed to study the matter. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 The request for a special meeting on geology was discussed; notification of date, time and location will be made at the meeting of September 10. The meeting will be noticed and information will be sent to homeowners associations and those who have spoken on the matter at previous hearings. If possible, mailings will be sent to abutting residents. RECESS AND RECONVENE - A 15 -minute recess was taken at 10:50 p.m. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Reading of the staff report NO. 624, CUP NO. 164; Ms. was waived regarding the Roslyn Stewart, 32201 applicant's request to allow Forrestal Drive. the use of a room, office and storage area at Ladera Linda Community Center for the purposes of conducting a school for the developmentally disabled. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. The public hearing was opened. Roslyn Stewart, 32201 Forrestal, stated that she agrees with the Staff Report. There were no questions, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brooks moved approval of the Staff Report, Commissioner Katherman seconded and the motion passed without objection. C. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 701 Assistant Planner Donna Jerex APPEAL; Andrew and Vicky presented the staff report Center, 2417 Sunnyside regarding the applicant's Ridge Road. request to overturn the Director's approval of Height Variation No. 701, thereby denying the project. Staff's recommendation is to uphold the Director's decision to approve the project with conditions, thereby approving the project. Ms. Jerex noted the redesigned project meets the City Development Code requirements. The public hearing was opened. Edie Pearson, 2618 Sunnyside Ridge Road, representing the Board of Directors of the Sunnyside Community Association, objected on the basis that the proposed structure violates the CC&R's, is too large to be compatible with the neighborhood homes, and the majority of the homeowners are opposed to the redesigned structure. Chairman Von Hagen and Commissioner McNulty stressed that the City cannot become involved with CC&R's, and the only way to enforce them is to go to court. Each application must be taken on its own merits on the basis of the City's rules. 7 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 11 Commissioner Katherman asked if any other two-story homes had been approved by the Association and Ms. Pearson replied that one had been but the lot was at a lower elevation and there was not much view impairment. Mary McManus, 2443 Sunnyside Ridge Road, stated that although home owners have a right to do what they want to improve their property, they should be considerate of other residents and not take advantage of other people's rights. Edwin Mendenhall, 2437 Sunnyside Ridge Road, testified that his home is next door to the Centers' home and his privacy will be invaded with the two-story addition. He also felt it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. David Bond, 2343 Sunnyside Ridge Road, stated he would not be affected directly but objected on the basis that this would set a bad precedent for a two-story house at grade level. He said if he were next door to the project he would strongly object. Jack Trost, 2407 Sunnyside Ridge Road, was opposed on the basis of invasion of privacy as the second story balcony overlooks his backyard, bedroom and bathroom. He felt it would decrease the value of his property, was incompatible with the architectural styles of other homes on the street, and he objected to the bulk of the addition. Gilbert Rowe, 2444 Sunnyside Ridge Road, said he is strongly opposed to the height variation and stated the staff report does not adequately address the issues raised in 26 letters from homeowners. He also objected on the basis of bulk, compatibility and setting a precedent. Vicky Center, 2417 Sunnyside Ridge Road, denied that the majority of the street's residents are opposed to the plan. She produced 12 letters from neighbors who support the proposed addition, and said four more will be forthcoming. Several neighbors indicated support but did not wish to write letters. She stated there are six or eight two-story homes in the neighborhood. In reply to Commissioner Katherman, Ms. Center said she would be willing to remove or trim some trees to enhance their neighbors' views. Andrew Center, 2417 Sunnyside Ridge Road, stated they have spent many months coming up with a plan they feel will fill their needs with the smallest negative impact on the size of their lot, while adding to the quality of the neighborhood. He pointed out that their house is at the back of the lot, their lot slopes 161 from 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 the street to their pad and the majority of their property is below grade. He provided photographs and indicated that the neighbors who are concerned about invasion of their privacy have no privacy at the present time, nor do the Centers. He denied that their architectural style would be incompatible with the neighborhood, and said their proposed addition would not impair views. He asserted that their remodeled home will improve the value of other properties on the street. Wilton Parker, 2534 Sunnyside Ridge Road, expressed his distress at the objections voiced by neighbors, saying none of them have any legal basis. He said trees are the biggest hindrance to views in the area. He supports the building plans and feels the new structure will increase the value of other homes. David Bieberly, 1223 Aldine Court, San Pedro (architect for the Centers) stated they have worked hard with the City to modify the plans to satisfy everyone and the Centers want to be good neighbors but a one-story addition doesn't work on the lot. He asked approval of the project so the construction could proceed. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNulty advised the audience that the issues of CC&Rls, needing more space, and privacy are not issues that the City or its Planning Commission can be concerned with. Commissioner Brooks expressed her concerns about trees and view impairment. Chairman Von Hagen pointed out that the subject lot is below the level of the street and the proposed addition would not impair views. commissioner Katherman suggested trimming of trees to 161 and planting a hedge along the western side to buffer the Mendenhalls' property. Commissioner Hotchkiss objected to asking the applicants to cut their trees when the other people on the street were not being asked to trim theirs. Commissioner McNulty moved to deny the appeal, upholding the Staff decision to approve the project subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded and the motion passed 3-2 with commissioners Brooks and Katherman dissenting,,�-ALI.. AutA­% k. -kv, J __� , D. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. Assistant Planner Donna Jerex 22899, ENVIRONMENTAL presented the Staff Report ASSESSMENT NO. 621, regarding the applicant's GRADING NO. 1533; John request to approve the Mavar, 2 Mustang Road. subdivision of land into two parcels; and to allow grading VJ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1991 for construction of a new single family residence on proposed Parcel 2. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. The public hearing was opened. Commissioner McNulty abstained from participation in this matter because of the proximity of his home to the subject property. John Mavar, 2 Mustang Road, stated he agrees with the conditions of approval. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Katherman moved approval of Staff Alternative No. 1 to approve the applicant's request subject to the conditions of approval. commissioner Hotchkiss seconded and the motion passed without objection. F. VARIANCE NO. 267 - Assistant Planner Fabio de REVISION; Mr. and Mrs. Freitas presented the Staff Michael Chon, 6925 Alta Report regarding the Vista. applicant's request to allow a revision of the original Variance approval for a kitchen/dining room addition. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. The public hearing was opened. Michael Chon, 6925 Alta Vista, stated he is in agreement with the conditions of approval. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNulty moved approval of Staff Alternative No. 1, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded and the motion passed without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS - None. NEW BUSINESS - None. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE - None. REPORTS - None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. to September 10, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. 10