Loading...
PC MINS 19921208MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Hayes, and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman ABSENT: Commissioners Clark and Lorenzen (excused). Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Senior Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Donna Jerex Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas, and Assistant Planner Kim Klopenstein. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director Onderdonk congratulated Chairman Katherman on being re- elected Chairman of the Planning Commission. Director Onderdonk reminded the Commission and the public of the EIR Workshop on December 9, 1992, 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Community Conference Room at City Hall. JoAnne Hadfield from KTGY, an environmental consulting firm, will conduct the workshop. Director Onderdonk discussed a letter received from Florence Wohlwill expressing her belief that the horse trails should be preserved as they are an important part of the community. I Director Onderdonk advised that County Measure A was approved in November and that the City would receive significant funds for acquisition and restoration of park lands. In response to Commissioner Mowlds question, Director Onderd8nk advised that special events such as the Chelsea America Garden Show do require temporary permits for large tents, electrical, etc. and that the applicants are provided with a packet of information including a checklist of requirements. They are also required to obtain a City business license. Chairman Katherman opened the nominations for Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1993 and nominated Vice Chairman Byrd. commissioner Alberio, moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to close the nominations. Motion carried without objection. The Planning Commission then unanimously approved the nomination of Vice Chairman Byrd. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 Vice Chairman Byrd disqualified himself from voting on the November 10, 1992 minutes on the Consent Calendar as he was not present at that meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of November 10, 1992. B. Minutes of November 24, 1992. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve the minutes of November 10, 1992 and November 24, 1992 as corrected. Notion carried 4-0, with Vice chairman Byrd abstaining. C. P. C. Resolution No. 9'2-75. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve P.C. Resolution No. 92-75; approving Conditional Use Permit No. 132 - Revision "All - Extension to allow continued use of the Xiraleste Elementary School site by the Discovery World Infant Center and Preschool. Motion carried 5-0. D. P. C. Resolution No. 92-76. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve P.C. Resolution No. 92-76; denying Conditional Use Permit No. 92 - Revision I'D" at 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard (the Salvation Army). Motion carried 4-1, with commissioner Alberio dissenting. Commissioner Alberio read a memorandum into the record which he asked be part of the meeting minutes. He thought that after giving the Salvation Army the options of constructing an earthen berm to block the view of the proposed building or to break the building up into two or more smaller buildings not exceeding 30 feet, the Planning Commission was out of order to then deny the Salvation Army's request to proceed with the option of an earthen berm. Commissioner Hayes read the institutional district section of the Development Code which requires "attractively planned" institutional facilities and "a building height not greater than 16 feet and not to exceed one story, except with the approval of the Planning commission as part of a CUP, but not to exceed thirty feet." She said she did not think a 70,000 square foot building with 200 to 300 residents with a mound of dirt in front of it was attractive or appropriate for Rancho Palos Verdes. She suggested several smaller buildings with corridors of light and air between them. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the Planning Commission was bending over backwards to accommodate the Salvation Army and the problem was that the Commission bent a little too far and now has to bend back. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 He said he could not agree to a building that has to be hidden from the public view. Chairman Katherman advised that the commission had to make strict legal findings in respect to a variance and that a variance for a building greater than 30 feet could only be granted when there were unusual circumstances or physical hardships. He did not think there were hardships in this case. E. P. C. Resolution No. 92- approving Variance No. 347 at 5561 Gravlog (Panah). Vice Chairman Byrd suggested this item be continued to give the Planning commission time to obtain additional information. He referred to a letter received from Mrs. Dougherty which advised that additional information from the original owner of the property will be available in January to verify the size and exact location of the original deck. 9 M,,�Aj I q93# Vice chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner HayeF., to continue P. C. Resolution No. 92- approving Variance No. 347 ,� to allow time for the Planning Commission to receive and review additional information which must be in writing since the public hearing was closed. Motion carried 5-0. Vice Chairman Byrd said it is was his understanding that the deck was to blend into the surrounding area, but the conditions of approval only referenced the railings and support members and did not address the tiled floor of the deck which is black and white. PUBLIC HEARING A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 153 - REVISION 112"; Nasser Novinshoar (Unocal), 31186 Hawthorne Boulevard. Allow a hand car wash on the existing Unocal -76 Service Station site. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds to waive the reading of the staff report. Motion carried 5-0. Nasser Novinshoar (applicant), 31186 Hawthorne Boulevard, stated that he had discussed his application for a hand car wash with the owner of the Golden Cove Restaurant and he did not object. Mr. Novinshoar agreed to the condition requested by Commissioner Mowlds to change the proposed chain link fence to the standard City requirement of a 90% open space, iron picket fence. Chairman Katherman confirmed with staff that there was no problem anticipated with cars queuing up at the entry as only ten to 15 cars per day were expected and there was ample room on site. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, testified in support of the project and said the applicant was a helpful, honorable gentlemen and his service station was a credit to the community. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 153 - Revision 11211 with Condition of Approval No. 5 to be modified to require a 900 open, iron picket fence in lieu of the proposed chain link fence, and Condition of Approval No. 6 to be modified to include a six month time limit. Motion carried 5-0. B. VARIANCE NO. 326; Gabriel Myro, 28208 San Nicolas. Assistant Planner Klopenstein gave the staff report recommending approval of this request to allow a maximum downslope height of 351-611 as measured from the lowest foundation in the front of the property, and a five foot west side setback. Staff has found that the variance can be justified since the proposed addition will not impact the views from the upslope properties on Ella Road, the facade will be stepped with the slope and will be articulated to reduce the bulk of the structure and the open space and neighborhood character will be maintained. Also, the minor reduction in the setback will not adversely impact the adjacent property since it will not encroach beyond the existing building footprint:. Gabriel Myro (applicant) 28208 San Nicolas and Antonio Valverde (architect for the applicant), 25904 Hillworth Avenue, Lomita, confirmed that the difference between the proposed roof height of the new addition and the existing ridgeline was one foot. Len LaFornara, 28117 Ella Road, testified against the variance and stated that the people on Ella road bought their homes because of the views which they expected to be preserved by the Planning Commission. He said he thought the proposed addition would adversely impact his views and the views of 32 other houses on Ella Road. Mr. LaFornara asked if the Commission had gone up to Ella Road and reviewed the views. He thought the Planning Commission was setting a precedent for other houses in the area. Commissioner Mowlds advised Mr. Lafornara that members of the Commissions had gone to Ella Road and he reviewed the Code section defining a protected view. Vice Chairman Byrd advised that the Commission was very sensitive to the protection of views but they also believed in property rights and trying to balance property rights and view restrictions. commissioner Alberio advised that Mr. LaFornara was the first person who accused the commission of not protecting views. Most people complain that they over regulate protection of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 views. Chairman Katherman advised that this case would not set a precedent as all variance applications are considered on their own merits. Mr. Grady advised that he would not be opposed to having the addition no higher than the existing roof. Hooman Shafazand, 28103 Ella Road, testified against the project saying it would impact his views. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. The Commissioners suggested dropping the maximum ridgeline height of the structure by one foot from 23 feet to 22 feet, stating that the proposed ceiling height is nine feet and if the ceiling height was brought down to eight feet, the applicant could bring the roof line down one foot. Chairman Katherman confirmed for the record that the silhouette up there now is for the total height of the variance and the commission is satisfied that there is no view impairment based on the definition of City Code. The applicant's architect confirmed that they would be willing to drop the roof height one foot. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio, to approve Variance No. 326 with amended Condition No. 3 of Exhibit "All to require the maximum ridgeline height shall not exceed 22 feet from the highest point covered by the structure and the Critical Ridgeheight is 136.5 feet, and to add a condition that the roof material on both the new and existing roof match and be consistent with Code requirements. Notion carried 5-0. RECESS AND RECONVENE - The meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. C. VARIANCE NO. 348• William Cornwall for Robert and Marilee Smith, 31205 Ganado Drive. The Commission waived the reading of the staff report. William Cornwall (applicant), 29000 S. Western Avenue, stated that he agreed with the staff report and the conditions of approval. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to close the public hearing. motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve variance No. 348 with Conditions on Exhibit "A". Motion carried 5-0. kil PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 323, HEIGHT VARIATION 743 - APPEAL, GRADING PERMIT NO.1617; Helen and David Engel, 6 Headland Drive. Assistant Planner Jerex presented the staff report recommending that the redesign of this project be approved. She distributed a conceptual sketch of the latest redesign proposed by the applicant. Ms. Jerex advised that the architect had worked with staff to reduce any view obstruction to a level of acceptability and that staff believes the revised plans are consistent with the direction given to the applicant by the Planning Commission. Bruce McCunney (architect for the applicant), 1912 El Monte Drive, Thousand Oaks, stated they had revised the second floor plan to decrease view impairment and to minimize the view of the addition from the neighbor's home. He said the redesign reflects a high degree of sensitivity on the part of the applicant and the Planning Commission to preserve the neighbor's views. In response to Chairman Katherman's inquiry, Mr. McCunney advised that he had not shown the revised plans to the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Tarr, and he proceeded to show them a copy at that time. David Engel (applicant), #6 Headland Drive, said he thought they had come up with a very good compromise and that the remodel is a benefit to the community. He requested approval of the project as redesigned. Paul Tarr, 94 Headland Drive, stated that his view of the harbor and Orange County had been taken away by another house and now the proposed addition will take away most of the view that is left. He requested denial of the height variation . Mr. Tarr said that the structure already has a total view from the first floor and adding a second story takes away his view. Chairman Katherman commented on the lack of communication between the two parties involved and explained that the sketch Mr. Tarr presented to the Commission to support his statements did not show the latest changes. Assistant Planner Jerex advised the Commission that on Friday, the Architect submitted a conceptual sketch of the latest revision which was not included in the packets, and the Commission recessed for ten minutes to review the new sketch with the applicant, staff and the Tarrs. Mr. Tarr requested that new scaffolding be put up and that the request for variance be continued to allow him time to review the new (third) revision. He also stated that he still disagrees with the whole project but since he had not seen the recent design changes before, he requested the project be continued. Chairman Katherman did not think it was necessary to reframe the project. R PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Hayes stated that the applicant had gone a good distance to resolve the view impairment. Vice Chairman Byrd commented that this was a difficult case and was a question of what is significant view impairment. He thought both parties were right since when you don't have much view and that is taken away it would meet the definition of significant. Chairman Katherman asked if the trees on the horizon in the photographs are on the applicant's property or the neighbor's property. Mr. Tarr advised that the two big pine trees are on his property and the rest are on the Engel's property and that some of the trees on the Engel's property block his view. The two trees on the south side of the Engel's property are blocking his view and a pepper tree on the north side impacts his view. Chairman Katherman requested that the language used in the Weber project be used in the view protection covenant staff was recommending for this project. He said the intent of the view protection ordinance is to disregard trees and his interpretation of that is to disregard trees on the property of the applicant, not trees that are in the neighborhood and are beyond the control of the applicant. The theory being that the applicant could not grow trees to a significant height to hide a second story addition and then come in and apply for a second story addition. Chairman Katherman said if they could come up with an equitable way of removing the trees, he would support the revised application as recommended by staff and with a view covenant with the same language as imposed on the Weber project on Via Campesina. Commissioner Mowlds advised that the City had published a Guidelines and Procedures for Preservation of Views which states "in lieu of such vegetation review, however, applicant may at his or her option submit a City covenant to protect the views " which was the section used in the Weber decision. The request was to thin the trees to meet staff's approval and then continue to thin every three or five years so the person who thought their view was being impacted could come back to the City with a set of photographs and request that the view be restored to what was agreed. This puts the burden on the property owner to thin the trees. Chairman Katherman moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve Height Variation No. 743 -Appeal, Variance No. 323, and Grading Permit No. 1617, and to incorporate the revised elevations including the deletion of the powder room as shown on the plans submitted this evening; with the additional requirement that the landscape covenant in Condition No. 4 be revised to require that before a building permit is issued, a site inspection is to be done and that any and all trees not complying with the view ordinance shall be cut down or thinned to meet the requirements of the view ordinance. The trees are to be 7 rt PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 thinned out thereafter on a regular interval not to exceed three years and they are to be continually thinned at the owner's expense. P. C. Resolution No. 92- is to come back as a consent calendar item on January 12, 1993 for review of the conditions and to review the new plans. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Administrator Petru confirmed that the Planning commission was asking staff to modify Condition No. 4 to be similar in language to the condition that staff used for the Weber House on Via campesina. She advised that she did not have the language here to read into the record and that there is nothing in the Weber decision that says staff can ask them to cut the trees to 16 feet. The City can ask them to thin it to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Services. Chairman Katherman said these are much faster growing trees than pines and would require thinning every three years to the satisfaction of the staff. Mr. Tarr stated that the trees the Planning commission is talking about have already been thinned and they still obstruct the view. Vice Chairman Byrd advised that the City would make a survey of the property to determine if they agree with him. If the City does agree with Mr. Tarr, they will instruct the applicant that he will have to thin any tree above 16 feet in height that is obstructing Mr. Tarr's view. Vice Chairman Byrd advised Mr. Tarr that every three years the applicant would be obligated financially to thin the trees at Mr. Tarr's request; and that the landscape covenant is recorded as part of the applicant's deed and runs with the land. If the property is sold, the future owner is notified and has to comply with the covenant. Chairman Katherman advised that Condition No. 4 would be reviewed at the January 12, 1993 hearing and comments would be accepted on that condition only. commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by vice chairman Byrd, to adjourn the meeting. Notion carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT at 10:20 p.m. to Tuesday, January 12, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. 8