Loading...
PC MINS 19930126MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Senior'Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas and Assistant Planner Kim Klopenstein. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The agenda was reordered to move Reports and Communications to the end of the agenda and to take the New Business item before Continued Business. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of January 12, 1993. commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to approve the minutes of January 12, 1993. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 351; Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Dean, 28601 Mt. Rose. Without objection, the commission agreed to waive the reading of the staff report. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve Variance No. 351; with conditions as per P. C. Resolution No. 93-3. Motion carried 7-0. Anthony Dean, applicant, 28601 Mt. Rose, testified that he understood and agreed to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Dean if he would provide "before and after" pictures of his addition for a guidebook being prepared by the former Planning Commission subcommittee on the Development Code. She thought this project would be a good example of a tasteful addition. NEW BUSINESS A. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1151 - REVISION I'D", 7440 Alida Place. Without objection, the Commission agreed to waive the reading of the staff report. Roger Dupont, (applicant's architect), 1846 9th Street, Manhattan Beach, testified that he and the applicant understood and agreed to the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to approve Grading Permit No. 1151 - Revision I'D" with conditions of approval. Motion carried 7-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 347; Nasser Rastegar-Panah, 5561 Graylog. Associate Planner Silverman presented the staff report for the request of an after -the -fact approval of an addition to an existing deck which extends approximately 7 feet over an extreme slope. Ms. Silverman clarified Staff's previous report and stated that at the Planning Commission meeting in November, conceptual approval of 13 sq. ft. of extension was granted by the Commission. At the following meeting, Staff recommended approval of 20.62 sq. ft. of deck due to the location of the support members of the deck. Although it was not discussed at the hearing, Staff felt that the intent of the Commission's approval was met with the 20.62 sq. ft. extension. Staff had since received photographs from a previous owner of the property which Staff used to estimate the length of the deck as originally constructed. It appears from the photographs that the deck was extended at some time from 141 to 161. There are no permits on file which document this extension. The current owner contends that the deck measured 161 when he purchased the property and at the time of approval for the replacement of the deck which was granted by the Director, he was unaware that any previous extensions had been made. Staff feels that the limited level outdoor area of the property warrants inclusion of this portion of the deck as part of the variance and a revised Resolution has been provided to the Commission which would approve the two foot extension plus the 20.62 sq. ft. area. Commissioner Alberio said that when the owner buys a property, he is charged with responsibility for knowledge of permits. Associate Planner Silverman advised that Staff thought the deck was constructed under the jurisdiction of the County which at that time did not require permits for decks. Commission Alberio stated that the title insurance recording documents show the dimensions of the house and anything that goes with the house, including the deck. If the records did not show the deck, he would know it was done without a permit. Commissioner Hayes asked what Staff would have approved as a replacement deck had the information been available that the original deck was 141 deep and 241 wide. Associate Planner Silverman replied that only approval of the 141x 241 deck plus any portion of an expanded deck that did not extend over an extreme slope would have been granted. Ms. Silverman explained that extreme slope permits are appropriate for decks that extend a minimum of 61 feet over an extreme slope and anything more than six feet is subject to a variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 PAGE 2 0— 0 Vice Chairman Byrd said that the Planning Commission should have been discussing anything above and beyond the 14' x 24' rather than the variance which was presented. Ms. Silverman replied that Staff recommended that the portion of the deck extended without permits be included as part of the variance. She advised that the original request was for 91 square feet of deck over an extreme slope which had not been part of the site plan review approval. The Commission approved 13 sq. ft. of that 91 sq. ft. and at the following meeting, Staff recommended that approximately 20 sq. ft. be approved because the position of the support members and the configuration of the deck would present a hardship to reduce the deck to the 13 sq. ft. Staff had recommended that the 20.62 sq. ft. be approved along with the two foot extension. Commissioner Hayes and Vice Chairman Byrd said that the Commission had given their approval without full knowledge of the size of the original deck and because they were led to believe the original deck was 16' in depth and approximately 44' wide and not 14' x 241; so the assumptions the Commission made that decision on were false. Ms. Silverman stated that was understood and notwithstanding the fact that permits were not obtained for the extension, Staff felt that the amount of level useable area on the property was limited and, therefore, the findings for granting the variance to allow for the two foot extension could be made. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the deck was up to code and if it had passed inspection. Ms. Silverman responded that the deck had not been finaled and that there had been no inspections since the previous Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Katherman confirmed with Staff that as a matter of right the applicant is allowed the 14' x 24' deck and any additions that do not extend over the extreme slope; and that the Resolution included the 14' x 24' and the two foot extension to that plus the 20.62 sq. ft. which the Commission had voted on at the last meeting. The Commissioners determined that the public hearing had been closed on this project but that the Resolution had been continued to this meeting. However, since new issues and information had been introduced, it was appropriate to request additional facts from Staff or from members of the audience; but they could not reopen the public hearing without renoticing the item. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Howard Weinhoff, (applicant's neighbor), 26108 Basswood Avenue, if he was supportive of this project and his reason for or against. Mr. Weinhoff responded that he was against the project and referred to his original letter to the Commission which requested two things: One, determine the size of the original deck and what the appropriate size of the replacement deck should be. The second was disapprove the variance because it was outside the boundaries of the original deck According to Mr. Adams, the original owner, his deck was 14' x 24' and that is the appropriate size of a replacement deck. Mr. Weinhoff said he objected to a deck larger than the original because it was an invasion of his privacy PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 PAGE 3 since with the larger deck the applicant could look into his yard and living area. This was not a problem with the deck in its original size. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Mrs. Carolyn Dirks -Dougherty, (applicant's neighbor), 5555 Graylog, about her objections to the deck which she had expressed at the last two hearings. Ms. Dougherty stated she realized after seeing Mr. Adams' pictures of the property, that she was mistaken in her previous testimony that one steps down to the deck and you could never see Mr. Adams head from her property. As she determined from the photographs, she could not see Mr. Adams head because of the heavy vegetation on both his side and her side of the fence and that actually, you walk out of the house and up two steps to his deck so the deck height is correct. Mrs. Dougherty thought that if Mr. Panah would put in vegetation between six and seven feet high and she would do the same thing on their side, the problem would be solved from her standpoint. Commissioner Alberio asked if that would impair her view. She replied that a wall, fence, hedge or lattice would impair her view but vegetation would not since it can be trimmed. Commissioner Lorenzen said that when he talked to Mrs. Dougherty's husband, he was concerned with the length of the deck. Mrs. Dougherty responded that their concern was that they believe in honesty and in telling the Commission the truth, which was why she contacted Mr. Adams who said it was 12' feet. She said maybe it was 141, she couldn't answer that, but she knows that it was not 161. She could not see the deck with the vegetation in, but without the vegetation the applicant can look over the deck and see into their bedroom and, therefore, she is asking for privacy. In response to Vice Chairman Byrd's question, the applicant, Nat Panah, 5561 Graylog Street, stated that the width of the room which opened onto the deck was approximately 221. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Mr. Panah how he had come up with 24' since Mr. Adams' letter specifically said that his deck only extended the width of that room. Mr. Panah responded that Mr. Adams was incorrect and that Associate Planner Silverman's method of measurement was incorrect mathematically and scientifically. Mr. Panah presented diagrams of the deck which he contended proved the deck as shown on the photographs had to be longer than 14' in order to be perpendicular to the building. Mr. Panah said he did not take any measurements but had taken Mr. Adams' photograph and the measurements taken by Associate Planner Silverman and came to the conclusion that those two together show the depth of the deck to be over 141. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if he had taken any pictures in his back yard and Mr. Panah said he had not. Vice Chairman Byrd concluded then that the only evidence the Commission had was the testimony of Mr. Adams, the testimony of Mr. Panah's two neighbors and Mr. Panah's testimony. Commissioner Alberio stated that he believed the photographs were distorted and that the Commissioners had no idea what condition the deck was in when the photographs were taken nor any idea of the distance the photographs were taken from. Therefore, the Planning Commission could not scientifically reach the same PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 PAGE 4 E • conclusions as Mr. Panah. Mr. Panah referred to a photograph of a beam taken by former Planning Assistant Paul Espe. Commissioner Mowlds advised Mr. Panah that the Planning commission had contacted Mr. Espe who had stated that he never said the beam he measured was perpendicular to Mr. Panah's house; and that all he did was measure a beam and he would not testify that the beam he measured was the supporting girder from Mr. Panahfs deck. commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, that the Commission deny the variance. Commissioner Clark confirmed with Commissioner Hayes that the purpose of her motion was that anything beyond what the applicant was entitled to as a matter of right be handled as a separate project and separated from what the Planning Commission was considering. Commissioner Clark advised that the Planning Commission had approved after -the -fact applications in the past. commissioner Hayes said her approval depended on what the project was, how it was designed, the curb appeal, how it affected the neighbors, and other factors. She said she had voted in the past for after -the -fact approvals but also remembered an application where it would have been very costly to remove and she said "you put it in, it wasn't approved, take it out." Commissioner Clark thought alternatives should be discussed. Commissioner Lorenzen said that he had no problem with after -the -fact approval if they were replacing an existing deck, but in fact it is a much larger deck. Commissioner Alberio stated that the applicant was a civil engineer who also had some construction experience and that he is responsible for building the deck without permits and without Planning Commission approval. Chairman Katherman advised that he looked at after -the -fact approvals as if the project had not been built and he tries to determine what is reasonable both in terms of the equities of the applicant and the burdens that are placed on the neighbors. He agreed with Associate Planner Silverman and her recommendations. Chairman Katherman pointed out that one neighbor, Mrs. Dougherty, thought that with appropriate screening the deck at 16 feet would not impact her privacy. Also, the neighbor to the west indicated he had a privacy problem, but Staff has put conditions in which would mitigate that and, moreover, that property owner has a deck which is equal to or greater in its extension over an extreme slope as that proposed by Mr. Panah. Commissioner Mowlds thought that the only variance the commission was considering was for a deck over an extreme slope, and that one of the conditions the commission requires for approval is that adjacent neighbors do not object. If adjacent neighbors had no objections, the Commission would approve the variance. Therefore, if he judged this project with the exact same criteria that he had judged every other deck over an extreme slope, he would not approve it since it extends out so far it is an annoyance to the adjacent neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 PAGE 5 Chairman Katherman clarified that the motion was to deny the variance and the result of the denial would be to require the applicant to reduce the depth of the deck from 16' to 14' and would require removal of all portions of the deck that extend over an extreme slope except the 141x 24' deck which was originally constructed. The motion to deny the variance carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: ALBERIO, LORENZEN, HAYES, BYRD AND MOWLDS NOES: KATHERMAN AND CLARK Commissioner Clark and Chairman Katherman stated for the record that they had voted no because they thought there were mitigating conditions that would have dealt with the privacy issue and now there are none and they felt that the Commission was not being consistent in dealing with after -the -fact applications. Chairman Katherman called for a new resolution at the next meeting and advised the applicant that there is a 15 -day appeal period after the resolution is approved. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS '0V:13a 1. Status of Development Code Revisions: Director Onderdonk discussed a memo from Planning Administrator Petru which outlined the status of the work that has been done in the past on the Development Code, and advised that he, Ms. Petru and Senior Planner Rojas will be working on the amendments and the rewriting of the Code that needs to be done. He said that considerable work has already been done on proposed changes which Staff would like to review with the Planning Commission and then focus on those other issues that are of special importance. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested, and Commissioners Hayes and Mowlds agreed, that the Code include a requirement for the Planning Commission to review all second story additions. Chairman Katherman requested that there be an alternative included of giving guidelines to applicants who want to add second stories and if they follow the guidelines they would have no problem getting Staff approval; but if they don't follow the guidelines, they have to come before the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Byrd agreed with providing guidelines but thought the application should still come before the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Byrd requested that it be explicitly defined as to when a geology report is required in order to determine unequivocally that a geology report is needed and to provide guidelines for Staff. Chairman Katherman said he was not sure an amendment to the grading code section is under the purview of the Planning Commission. Planning Administrator Petru advised that there is nothing about PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 PAGE 6 geology reports in the Development Code but she thought it is part of the Building Code. Vice Chairman Byrd also expressed concern that it was becoming expensive to do modifications to a property. He thought that perhaps by trying to be extra safe, they may be over burdening the homeowner financially. Commissioner Alberio inquired about updating the satellite section and Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that since the technology was changing rapidly, Staff should contact Hughes Aircraft and determine what their new satellites will be using in the way of antennas. The Commissioners requested that Staff make their technical and structural corrections including definitions, cross-referencing and indexing, and then meet with the Planning commission subcommittee at their earliest convenience to review the policy issues with respect to design review. Staff would then prepare a draft document for the Planning Commission's review and comments and then take that information and prepare a final draft for the Commission and then schedule a public hearing. Director Onderdonk suggested that Staff break the Development code revisions into manageable pieces that are logical and make incremental changes rather than bringing it back as a whole. He expressed concern that if everything was done at once, it could be overwhelming and take a long time to get through the change process. chairman Katherman responded that so many sections are tied to other sections that it would be difficult to do in increments, but if Staff could divide it into a logical format, the Commission had no objection. 2. Lunada Pointe Gate Closure Resolution: The Commission accepted the information presented by Staff, and Director Onderdonk advised that Staff would try to be more clear in communications with City Council as to what additions are made by City Staff or the City Attorney and what is the recommendation from the Planning commission. 3. Coastal Commission Update: Director Onderdonk stated that coastal Commission updates were included in his weekly report and the Commission requested that they all receive copies. Director Onderdonk noted that the hearing on Ocean Trails was tentatively scheduled for February in San Diego. 4. Monterey Conference: Director Onderdonk advised that the City will pay registration, travel, hotel and food expenses for four people. Commissioners Hayes and Alberio and Vice chairman Byrd will attend. 5. Summons: Director Onderdonk stated that the City had received a summons naming the members of the Planning Commission and distributed the first page of same to the Commissioners. He advised that the City Attorney will file the necessary responses within the required time frame and there is nothing more that the Commission needs to do. He will keep them advised of future developments. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 PAGE 7 COMMISSION 1. Portuguese Canyon: Vice Chairman Byrd asked if it was possible to drain Portuguese Canyon to stop the movement of P. V. Drive South. Director Onderdonk informed the Commission that an engineering study is underway and he would bring back a report at the next meeting. 2. Housing Element: Chairman Katherman requested that Staff bring back a report at the next meeting of their response to the State's review of the City's Housing Element. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE John P. Sharkey, Avenida de Calma, discussed the appellants' point of view of the Coastal commission hearings and the City's image with the Coastal commission. Chairman Katherman stated that Mr. Sharkey, as well as the Coastal Commission, should understand that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes did not intend to prohibit or inhibit access to the coastline. vice Chairman Byrd commented that the fiscal issue was not being addressed and asked who pays for all this. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Mowlds, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to Tuesday, February 9, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse park. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 PAGE 8