Loading...
PC MINS 19930223,r, r, MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 1993 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, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Donna Jerex and Assistant Planner Kim Klopenstein. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS STAFF Director Onderdonk advised that the Coastal Commission approved the Transamerica project with numerous conditions; the most significant of which was the requirement that Transamerica set aside $250,000 to reserve alternate Coastal access, preferably in the Palos Verdes area. Director Onderdonk requested, and the commission agreed, that the next Planning Commission meeting be changed from Tuesday, March 9, 1993 to Monday, March 8, 1993 to allow those members of the Commission who were driving up to the Planners Institute seminar in Monterey on Wednesday to get an early start. Director Onderdonk noted that the staff memorandum provided the information the Commission had requested on three variance cases. Director Onderdonk advised that Councilman Ryan had submitted his recommendations on view restoration to City Council, and that Council had requested that the recommendations also be shared with the Planning Commission, the View Restoration Committee and the City Attorney. After a brief discussion of view restoration issues with the Commission, Staff was directed to come back with a memorandum responding to Councilman Ryan's suggestions. COMMISSION Commissioner Alberio discussed a letter he composed on behalf of the Planning Commission in response to a letter from Mr. Panah's attorney regarding the Commission's actions on Variance No. 347, 5561 Greylog. Commissioner Hayes requested it be on record that she was not aware of the attorney's letter when she voted on the variance at the last hearing and that knowledge of that letter would have had no bearing on her decision. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he7also was not aware of the attorney's letter at the last hearing. Commissioner Alberio opined that the letter did not clearly advise the Planning Commission that Mr. Panah planned to sue the City and, therefore, there was no need to have an Executive Session to discuss that possibility. Commissioner Hayes suggested that escrow papers, appraisals, fire insurance policies, etc. on the Panah property be reviewed to resolve the issue of the size of the original deck. Chairman Katherman advised that the house was built before the City was incorporated in 1973 and records were sparse or missing in many cases and also, some of the information was not public. The Commissioners concluded the discussion by agreeing that it was a very well written letter and that it should be sent to Mr. Panah's attorney. Commissioner -Me �asked what the City's enforcement procedures were when someone did not respond to the City's requests for Code compliance such as with two of the variance cases on which Staff reported. Director Onderdonk advised that Code Enforcement Officer George Rodericks is working with a special prosecuting attorney from the City Attorney's office to enforce these measures. He said the goal is to get compliance and to not levy fines. The legal process is costly and time consuming, and the vast majority of code enforcement cases are resolved without legal action. Director Onderdonk informed the Commission that City Council would address enforcement procedures at their next meeting, and that they planned to discuss the City of Cerritos' approach of going through an enforcement process where a special Commission is appointed to review the cases. Commissioner Mowlds advised that it was his understanding that the Island View Homeowners Association no longer has a request pending before the City to vacate the public streets in their tract. Therefore, further City action may be required in the Island View development where the pilasters are encroaching into the public right- of-way. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of February 9, 1993. Page 4 - Chairman Katherman requested that the last sentence of the first paragraph be changed to read "the City would not have time to require that the deck be altered during that time since the process would take longer than six months." Page 6 - Regarding Variance No. 352, Chairman Katherman requested that the record show that he did not say that the house was too large for the property and had, in fact, made the specific comment that the square footage of the house was approximately the same size as the conceptual design presented when the Commission considered the Parcel Map on this property. Commissioner Alberio noted typographical errors to be corrected on Pages 5 and 6. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 2 commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve the minutes of February 9, 1993 as corrected. Notion carried 7-0. B. P. C. Resolution No. 93-4; approving Conditional Use Permit No. 24 - Revision 2 (P.V. Panorama). The Commission agreed to consider a motion without discussion. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve P.C. Resolution No. 93-4. Notion carried 7-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. ZONE CHANGE NO. 20, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 19, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 647; Shafigh Zadeh, 29941 Hawthorne Boulevard. Staff recommended that since the Associate Planner assigned to this project was still out ill and, therefore, the staff report was not available, this item be continued without taking any public testimony. Commission Movlds moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio, to continue Zone Change No. 20 and General Plan Amendment No. 19 to March 8, 1993. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING A. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 453 - APPEAL; Uday and Sandhya Patil, 4011 Palos Verdes Drive South. Carolynn Petru presented the Staff report advising that the landowner had requested a minor exception permit to allow three bow type windows and two support columns for a new front entry to encroach a maximum of three feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback. As a condition of approval, Staff required that the base of the two windows on the upper pad level cantilever into the front setback with a minimum distance of 21-611 from the ground to the base of the window. The appeal requests that Condition No. 5 be modified to allow the two windows on the upper level to cantilever 611 from the ground and that way they would be cantilevered off the floor joists. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision, subject to the original conditions. In response to Commissioner Hayes, question, Planning Administrator Petru advised that there are some structures such as a wooden fence on top of a retaining wall and other minor structures that were approved under the County that are legal, non -conforming and that the covered walkway at 4003 Palos Verdes Drive South may be one of them. At this time, Chairman Katherman acknowledged that there was a boy scout troop attending the meeting and invited the troop leader to the microphone. Bob Chase, Assistant Scoutmaster of Troop #47 of the PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 3 South Bay District, informed the Commission that the group was observing the meeting in order to meet their requirement for Citizenship in the Community. Chairman Katherman thanked them for coming. Mr. Uday Patil, (Appellant and Landowner), 4011 Palos Verdes Drive South, testified that the reasons for his appeal to modify Condition No. 5. were: (1) Significant additional expense will be required for any design alternative to meet the two -foot six-inch requirement, (2) the proposed design with cantilevered floor joists is better than any alternative and represents greater seismic safety and no possibility of sagging or settlement, and (3) the volume to be reduced by the two - foot six-inch requirement is very small and the proposed change will not have any visual impact, especially with the landscaping requirement in condition 6. He distributed material to the Commission outlining his reasons for the original minor exception permit and for his appeal to modify Condition No. 5, including details and elevations of the windows. Commissioner Mowlds stated that there were many bow windows in the Palos Verdes community constructed the way Staff was requesting and if Mr. Patil wanted to encroach into the 20 foot front yard setback requirement, the cost is something that he has to weigh when the City tells him how it has to be done. Mr. Patil asked Commissioner Mowlds how the other windows like this on the Peninsula are supported and designed and were they smaller kitchen type windows. Commissioner Mowlds responded that it was done with a rigid steel frame and they did not even have a diagonal support. He advised they were very large windows and that in his business, he can buy them premade in that size. Mr. Patil responded that the Code says a hardship can be a reason for allowing the minor exception permit and he considered expense a hardship. Commissioner Mowlds agreed that expense is a hardship but advised Mr. Patil that the Commission was hearing the issue now as a de novo hearing and as such, there has been no minor exception permit granted. He advised that the Commission was hearing the item tonight as to whether there was going to be any encroachment into the 20 foot front yard setback requirement and if so, whether to allow six inches or two foot six inches under the bow windows. Commissioner Mowlds explained that he wanted Mr. Patil to understand that cost does not enter into it nor does the internal configuration of his house, and that the Commission was considering how the property looks from the street. He was trying to determine why Mr. Patil could not build it another way. Mr. Patil responded that he believed the setbacks he was proposing would be more aesthetical pleasing than any other configuration. In response to commissioner Lorenzen suggestions, Mr. Patil advised that he could not move the house back on the lot since they were trying to preserve the existing house in the back. Also, if he just moved the front wall back, the master bedroom would be too small. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 4 Commissioner Hayes thought there was enough room for the wall to be moved back to allow the bow window within the front yard setback requirements. Mr. Patil answered that the problem with that'was then the living room would coincide with the entry and one would enter into the sitting area. Chairman Katherman asked Staff if there were circumstances of hardships as part of this application. Planning Administrator Petru responded that Staff did not think that by a strict interpretation of the Code you could make a finding that it is unique and different from any other house in the neighborhood and that there is a fairly homogeneous setback situation on Palos Verdes Drive South. Ms. Petru said that Staff was trying to find a compromise to help the applicant improve his property but yet not be*too offensive to the street scape. She said that what they intended in the conditions of the original approval was to provide articulation to the residence. She explained that Staff allowed the entry columns since they provide articulation there, but asked the applicant to choose which two of the three bow windows he would like to encroach into the setback. However, he was steadfast in his position that he needed all three. Staff was trying to find a compromise solution to allow Mr. Patil to improve the property, but yet reduce the bulk of the addition so that it addressed Staff's concerns of so much mass moving closer to the property line than any other house in the neighborhood. Chairman Katherman confirmed with Staff that walls in the front yard setback are allowed to be 31-611 and suggested the Commission require a planter wall in front of the bow windows which would soften the appearance. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. vice Chairman Byrd thought the problem was that the width of the bedroom was under thirteen feet now and if the front of the house is moved back three feet, the bedroom will be too small. He suggested that the bow windows be eliminated. Commissioner Alberio noted that the applicant's existing master bedroom and his entryway into the combination dining room and living room is much smaller than what he is proposing. Commissioner Lorenzen suggested that Mr. Patil reduce the radius of the bow and not encroach as much into the setback and that he also move the wall back. He recommended denying the minor exception permit. 4 4A 41T � 4 & hA^°-- Commissioner Clark did not th i tk that three feet out of a twenty foot setback was of great magnitude h one considers that other properties in the neighborhood, because of the County situation, have some encroachment problems with the setback. He said he could go along with the minor exception permit with additional softening such as a planter wall as suggested by Chairman Katherman. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 5 Vice Chairman Byrd thought the suggestions to add a planter and to reduce the radius of the bow were good since they would provide articulation without the intrusion of three feet. He suggested allowing a two foot encroachment. Vice Chairman Byrd said he does not like the idea of encroaching into setbacks, but he did not think that decreasing the width of the bedroom made sense. He also felt that the applicant's cost had to be considered. Commissioner Hayes stated that she did not like to see anything built into the setbacks without serious extenuating circumstances to justify it, and suggested taking out the bedroom bow window and moving back the living room bow window to keep within the setback requirements. Commissioner Mowlds said that setbacks were very important and that he could find no extenuating condition in this case that made it necessary to encroach into the 20 foot front yard setback. He stated he was not concerned about the interior configuration of the house. He advised that there is only one other house in that area that he knows of that encroaches into the front yard setback. Chairman Katherman said he was swayed by the architectural design and the fact that there is articulation on the project, that being on a service road the house is not really on Palos Verdes Drive South and it is set back significantly and screened from Palos Verdes Drive South, and that the applicant is not knocking the whole house down and, therefore, could not move it back. He stated that the property has an extremely large rear yard setback and he thought there was a hardship because of the location of the house on the property. Chairman Katherman stated that he thought the applicant's proposal was the most practical solution to expanding the house without getting a height variation which he recognized would be difficult and controversial in this area, and that he thought the applicant had done a very good job of compromising. He agreed there should be some mitigation such as reducing the radius of the bow and requiring a planter wall to screen the bottom. He thought the bow windows were quite attractive and added to the neighborhood and he noted that the Homeowners Association and Mr. Patil's neighbors had no objections. Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to adopt the alternative Staff recommendation to uphold the appeal to allow the bow windows on the first floor to extend down to within 6" of the ground and to be cantilevered off the floor joists, and with the additional condition that a planter wall be placed in front of the bow windows. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he thought Commissioner Lorenzen's recommendation to restrict the size of the bow windows was an excellent idea and suggested two feet. vice Chairman Byrd moved to amend the motion on the floor to reduce the radius of the bow windows and to move the entry columns back so they encroach no more than two feet into the front yard setback. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 6 • Commissioner Lorenzen seconded the roll call vote as follows: AYES: LORENZEN, BYRD, NOES: ALBERIO, CLARK, • motion, Motion failed on a , MOWLDS Commissioner Clark called the question on the original motion which failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: CLARK, BYRD, THERMAN NOES: ALBERIO, LORENZEN, HAYES, MOWLDS Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to deny Minor Exception Permit No. 453 thereby denying any encroachment into the front yard setback. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: ALBERIO, LORENZEN, NOES: CLARK, BYRD, KATHE The applicant then approached the Commissioner Clark reconsider his the two foot encroachment since he motion allowing a three foot encro that he was willing to reconsider. the applicant was out of order and the last motion could request reco Commissioner Lorenzen moved, second reconsider the decision of the Comm vote to deny the Minor Exception Pe Commissioner Alberio requested that thought this was an irregular proce that anyone on the Commission has a Planning Administrator Petru advise of an item may be made by any membe majority and any member of the Plan Motions to reconsider shall be made original motion. If the matter to public hearing, the public hearing evidence is received. .YES, MOWLDS, crophone and requested that to on the amended motion allowing as in agreement with the original hment. Commissioner Clark stated Commissioner Alberio opined that my the person who voted yes on ideration. by Commissioner Clark, to sion which was a four to three it. it be in the record that he ure. Chairman Katherman opined right to request reconsideration. that motions for reconsideration who voted with the prevailing ing Commission may second it. at the same meeting as the e reconsidered was considered at a ill be reopened before additional The motion to reconsider carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: LORENZEN, CLARK, BYRD, KATHERMAN NOES: ALBERIO, HAYES, MOWLDS Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to reintroduce the amended motion to establish the encroachment at two feet for the bow windows and the entry columns and to request that a PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 7 planter be installed in front of the first floor bow windows. Notion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: LORENZEN, CLARK, BYRD, KATHERMAN NOES: ALBERIO, HAYES, XOWLDS RECESS AND RECONVENE 9:20 TO 9:30 Chairman Katherman requested and the Commission agreed without objection to reorder the agenda to allow comments from the audience at this time. AUDIENCE COMMENTS John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, requested that silhouettes of proposed zoning and general plan changes be of the full envelope of the building which would be allowed under the change and not just an outline of the proposed project which could be changed if the land is sold or the developer presents a different project once the zoning and General Plan changes are approved. The commission agreed and Director Onderdonk said he would request that the applicant for Zone Change No. 20 and General Plan Map Amendment No. 19 build a silhouette reflecting the Commission's request to outline the full envelope of building allowed under the proposed change. NEW BUSINESS A. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1676; John Blazevich (landowner), 3270 Crownview Drive. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to waive the reading of the staff report. Motion carried 7-0. Anthony Inferrera (architect), 1967 Upland Street, distributed a site inspection report, a soils report and a structural design report of the area where the proposed retaining wall will be built. He also distributed a diagram of the wall which he stated showed that the cut for the seven foot high retaining wall would be taking out almost as much dirt as they would for the four and a half foot wall due to the design criteria, and that they were basically taking out most of the dirt back there anyway. Commissioner Alberio noted that the structural report was not signed and certified. Mr. Inferrera replied that the report will be signed when it goes to the building department for plan check and the report at this time was just to show what they have done. John Blazevich (Applicant), 3270 Crownview Drive, stated that he is requesting the seven foot retaining wall because he has a young son and he wanted to create a play area for him. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 8 Robert Kircher, 3268 Crownview Drive, testified that he lives just west of the subject property and that he has no objection to the play yard for the child, but that he does have concern that the retaining wall be done properly with the proper permits and that it be structurally sound and support the cut. He said he was concerned about the safety of his wall, patio and residence. Mr. Kircher said he would like to see it done in an expeditious manner since the earth removed so far has been sitting there for sometime. He asked that if the Commission did not approve the applicantfs request, the dirt removed thus far be recompacted in accordance with the City's Development Code. Commissioner Alberio explained to Mr. Kircher that the reason he asked that the structural report be signed and certified is to make sure that it meets the requirements of the City and it is certified by a structural engineer. Commissioner Mowlds noted that construction was done on this site without a permit and asked if the City could find out who did the work and determine if that contractor had paid for his City business license. Assistant Planner Klopenstein advised that Staff had collected penalty fees for the work that was done without a permit. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve Grading Permit No. 1676 subject to conditions, and to modify conditions a. and b. to allow Staff to approve additional grading if necessary to complete the job safely and that the full height of the wall meet all City Development Code requirements; and to add the conditions that the wall be stucco to match the house and that the landowners submit a "hold harmless" agreement prior to the issuance of building permits. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioners Mowlds and Vice Chairman Byrd stated that they did not think artificial constraints should be imposed on the amount of grading as it should be whatever amount is necessary to be safe. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the wall should be whatever height is necessary and Assistant Planner Klopenstein advised that the City code limit is 81 for upslope retaining walls and Staff computes that from finished grade to the top of the wall. Commissioner Mowlds said it has to be high enough to protect the neighbor and Vice Chairman Byrd stated that it has to be high enough to be safe. Planning Administrator Petru explained that Staff does not count the excavation for the footings to the wall, and that the seven foot cut is just that part which is to be retained by the new wall excluding the footing. She said the 92 cubic yards is an amount of air space gained after putting the retaining wall in. She advised that Staff required the condition specifying the depth of the cut and cubic yards of export as a safeguard so the project is not expanded, the applicant does not go deeper into the slope, does not encroach on the neighbor's property, and does not make it wider than originally proposed. If it goes over PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 9 li9 It because of a technical requirement, Staff deals with that with the building inspector. Chairman Katherman confirmed that the motion was to approve Staff Alternative No. 2 to approve the project as requested subject to modified conditions of approval as specified by Commissioner Mowlds with the additional condition that the wall be stucco to match the house. Motion carried 7-0. 1 ADJOURNMENT On a motion by commissioner Hayes, seconded by Chairman Katherman, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:55 p.m. to Monday, March 8, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 PAGE 10