Loading...
PC MINS 19930525APPROVED 6/8/93 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Hayes, Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. LATE ARRIVALS: Commissioners Clark and Lorenzen arrived at 7:38 p.m. Also present were Director of Environmental Services Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas and Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of April 27, 1993. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio to approve the minutes of April 27, 1993. Motion carried (4-0-1) without objection with Chairman Katherman abstaining. B. P.C. Resolution No. 93 - ; approving Conditional Use Permit No. 132 - Extension at 6245 Via Canada (PVPUSD) (TS) Chairman Katherman confirmed with Associate Planner Terry Silverman that the Harbor Foundation had left the campus. Chairman Katherman stated that he received complaints about rollerblade skaters on the tennis courts. The Planning Commission directed staff to examine parking, loading areas as they pertain to the dance school, emergency access, condition and use of the tennis courts, making all school CUP's expire at the same time, insurance liability and a comprehensive list of conditions of approval. Director Bernard recommended that the Commission continue this item to the July 13, 1993 meeting. Commissioner Alberio moved and Commissioner Mowlds seconded to continue the item for to the July 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting with notice to adjacent properties. PUBLIC HEARING A. VARIANCE NO. 353• Mr. MOUNOUFAR KHOURY 3110 DIANORA DRIVE Kim Klopfenstein, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report stating that Mr. Khoury, the owner of the property located at 3110 Dianora, is requesting a variance to allow for a perimeter fence within the intersection visibility triangle and to allow a 10' encroachment into the 201 front yard setback for the expansion of the existing non -conforming garage. Staff felt the expansion to the garage and the encroachment of the fence into the visibility triangle are minor and views from the adjacent properties would not be impaired. Staff, therefore, recommended approval of the project subject to conditions. Commissioner Alberio asked why the existing garage was encroaching into a 201 setback. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded that the garage was built under the County with a non -conforming setback of 12 1/2'. Commissioner Clark stated that all the Mira Catalina homes and garages were built in the mid 1960's before the city was incorporated. Commissioner Alberio asked why Staff is recommending that the applicant be allowed to encroach more into the setback. Planner Klopfenstein responded Staff felt that it wouldn't impair views and that the additional 2 1/21 encroachment was minor. Commissioner Alberio expressed concern about the placement of the fence on the slope. He also expressed concern about the distance of the garage to the fence. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded that the small size of the lot, the configuration of the corner lot and the slopes on the property created a unique situation. She continued to say that it is not habitable space, and the purpose of the garage expansion was to match on the front facade. Commissioner Alberio was concerned about the height of the fence impairing the view in the visibility triangle. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded that 18 inches is concrete block and the other part is wrought iron. The visibility triangle limits hedges or solid walls to 30 inches, but because there is 90% light and air the Public Works Department felt that the fence would not obstruct traffic visibility at the corner. commissioner Byrd asked Assistant Planner Klopfenstein where the new fence is to be located in reference to the existing fence. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein stated that the existing fence at the top of the slope would be removed and the new fence would be installed near the toe of the slope. Commissioner Clark asked Assistant Planner Klopfenstein to define intersection visibility triangle. Ms. Klopfenstein responded that the intersection visibility triangle is measured 60 feet back from the point of the intersection of Dianora and Corinna. Chairman Katherman reminded the Commission that this was an L- shaped, not a T-shaped or four-way intersection. Commissioner Alberio was concerned about the height and visibility through the fence when vegetation starts to grow over it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 2 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded that overgrown vegetation would be referred to Code Enforcement. The applicant would have to maintain the fence at 90% light and air. Vice Chairman Byrd asked what the distance is from the fence to the curb. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded that it is 12 feet from the property line to the curb, but that the fence is an additional 3-5 feet from the property line. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the fence was located 6-7 feet up the slope in the visibility triangle. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru responded that it is technically located in the visibility triangle as defined in the Code Section 17.42.060, which is why Staff had Public Works investigate to determine if it would create be a traffic visibility problem, which they determined that it would not. Carnig Sarkissian, architect, 4010 Gayle Drive, Tarzana, CA. stated that his client wants to improve the property and the placement of the fence is for security purposes. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Mr. Sarkissian if they were going to landscape. Mr. Sarkissian responded that they would do light landscaping, but the fence is primarily for security. Vice Chairman Byrd stated his concerns about the height and location of the 6' fence. Commissioner Alberio agreed with his concerns. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner Alberio stated that he would agree to a security fence at the top of the slope, but not half way down the slope. Commissioner Hayes commented that the steepness of the slope made the fence unobstrusive. Commissioner Mowlds stated his concerns about the fences on that street. Commissioner Lorenzen felt the fence should be lowered to 5 feet. Commissioner Clark supported the bay window, but questioned the purpose of the fence, as far as security is concerned. In addition, Commissioner Clark felt that fence would have a visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Chairman Katherman commented that the corner lot creates an unusual circumstance where the side and rear yard almost becomes one. The architect's intent here was to compromise by putting the fence 2/3 of the way down the slope, which is reasonable given the configuration of the lot. Chairman Katherman also agreed with Commissioner Lorenzen's suggestion that the wrought iron fence be lower in height. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 3 Commissioner Clark stated that he had not received the public notice for this project and due to the distance from his residence, he is eligible to vote on this item. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd to approve the bay window and garage addition and deny the 61 fence located within the intersection visibility triangle. Motion carried 5-2 with Chairman Katherman and Commissioner Alberio dissenting. The Resolution will be brought back on June 8, 1993. NEW BUSINESS At Chairman Katherman's request, the Commission agreed to take Item A under New Business before Item A under Continued Business. A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 615; HARBOR COVE PLAZA, 28924 S. WESTERN AVENUE Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas stated that it was brought to his attention by the applicant under the conditions of approval that there are two temporary banner signs on the site. Only the "For Lease" sign is located on the subject property while the "Open Saturday" sign is located on the adjacent property. The "For Lease" sign should by subject to the conditions of approval only. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he would like to eliminate the time limit for the illumination of the sign set in Conditions of Approval No. 3. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve the request, subject to the suggested conditions of approval, but to exclude Condition No. 3. The motion carried 7-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 768 - APPEAL, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 113, GRADING PERMIT NOS. 1668 AND 1681; MR. & MRS. LA BARBA. 3300 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (A.K.A. 30101 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST J . Associate Planner Terry Silverman presented the Staff Report and advised that on March 18, 1993, the Director of Environmental Services denied the request to construct a new two story structure on the subject property. This request was denied for several reasons. First, it was determined that, while the construction would not impair the view from any private properties, the project would signif icantly impair the view from the public right-of-way as identified in the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 4 that the structure will extend into the ocean view and above the horizon line. Additionally, Staff felt that the 25,000 square feet of level yard area on the property provides sufficient acreage to accommodate a structure similar in square footage to that proposed, with a maximum height of 16 feet. For this reason, Staff felt that the project was not designed and situated in such a manner to minimize view impairment. It was also determined that, due to its location along Palos Verdes Drive West, the potential cumulative view impairment that would be caused by similar construction would be significant. Finally, Staff felt that, if approved, this structure would not be compatible with the neighborhood character because this home would not only be significantly larger than any home immediately surrounding it, it would also be the largest home in the City. Staff felt that the proposed grading both on and off the site is excessive beyond the primary use of the lot in that this is a relatively flat pad and the request for over 3,200 cubic yards of grading is inconsistent with the existing site conditions. Therefore, Staff recommended that the project be redesigned as a single story structure with minimal on-site grading and no off-site grading permitted. Commissioner Clark asked Associate Planner Silverman who was the director when this project was denied. Ms. Silverman responded that it was Dudley Onderdonk. Chairman Byrd asked Ms. Silverman if she included the basement as total area in the square footage. Ms. Silverman responded that she did include that for the total area. Chairman Katherman, Vice Chairman Byrd and Nick Mowlds discussed whether a subterranean room is considered to be habitable or not. Commissioner Hayes states that since the Lunada Pointe homes are clustered and, therefore, have very small lots, they cannot be compared to this particular lot which is 1 + acre. Associate Planner Terry Silverman responded that she didn't review the sizes of the lots, but that she looked at all the building permits for all of the homes on Marguerite Drive. Commissioner Mowlds wanted to clarify that he felt that Staff's calculation didn't accurately represent the actual sizes of homes in Lunada Pointe and that based on his review of the drawings he felt the homes were actually larger in Lunada Pointe than indicated by Staff. Chairman Katherman questioned the interpretation of the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan by the applicant regarding PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 5 views. Chairman Katherman then proceeded to discuss the views as shown by the photos on the poster board. GEORGE SHAW, A.I.A., EDWARD CARSON BEALL AND ASSOCIATES, 23727 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD, TORRANCE, CA 90505 (architect representing the applicant) - proceeded to give testimony on the background and history of the project. In conclusion, Mr. Shaw asked the Commission to look favorably on the project. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Shaw if the media room which is part of the basement would be considered livable area. Mr. Shaw confirmed this. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Mr. Shaw what the overall increase height is from the existing house. Mr. Shaw responded that it is 9 feet higher than the existing residence. James La Barba, 2621 Via Ramon, Palos Verdes Estates, CA (Landowner) testified that he commends Associate Planner Silverman and architect George Shaw on their professionalism and fine work, even though they have opposite views of the project. Mr. La Barba stated his desire and hopes for this property. Mr. La Barba also expressed what it means to he and his wife, Georgiane, to be able to build this house. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. La Barba if he is willing to compromise on the design of the house. Mr. La Barba explained what that it was his preference to construct the home as it is currently proposed. Commissioner Clark questioned Mr. La Barba if he saw any validity to the perspective that building the house as designed, would impair some visibility of the coastline and ocean, from Palos Verdes Drive West for those who aren't fortunate to live in a location like this from Palos Verdes Drive West. Mr. La Barba responded that it is the vegetation on the road median which impairs the view when it is not trimmed. commissioner Clark observed that trimming the vegetation would maintain the view. Mr. La Barba agreed. I Commissioner Mowids asked Mr. La Barba if he is willing to maintain and replace vegetation to frame the house. Mr. La Barba responded that he certainly would maintain the vegetation on the property out of his own self-interest. At this point, Chairman Katherman called for a five minute break and instructed the audience that the commission would reconvene at 10:06 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 6 Betsy Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. testified that she was concerned about the public view corridor and expressed the hope that there was a way to preserve the ocean view. Georgiane La Barba, 2621 Via Ramon, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. (Landowner) expressed how anxious and excited she is to start to build her dream house. Commissioner Hayes moved and Vice Chairman Byrd seconded to close the public hearing. Motion was carried 7-0. Associate Planner Terry Silverman commented that Staff initially chose not to compare this structure with the homes in Lunada Pointe for neighborhood compatibility, because Staff felt it was more visually and physically related to homes on Palos Verdes Drive West. Staff eventually did compare it to Lunada Pointe, only because of the comments received from residents of that tract. However, Staff used building permits, not Assessor's information or, building plans, to determine the size of the homes. The main difference between the proposed project and the other homes in Lunada Pointe, is that these homes are not silhouetted against the ocean, like the proposed structure. Compatibility was only one finding against this application. Staff's primary concern in denying the application was the finding that this project would be contrary to both the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan due to significant view impairment that would result from the construction. This would be the only structure north of the Pt. Vincente Lighthouse that extends above the horizon line. This was of particular concern to Staff because of the extreme care and consideration that was given in eliminating view impairment from structures in the HMDI development, south of the subject property. Staff felt that this house would be aesthetically pleasing to look at, however, the intent of the Code is to prevent significant view impairment. While the property is not located within an identified view cone, the ocean view is protected and new structures should not project into the view between Palos Verdes Drive West and the coastline. Commissioner Hayes stated that she was concerned about the impacts to the view corridor, as it relates to the Coastal Specific Plan. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru quoted from the Coastal Specific Plan: "A large portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West/South/25th Street Corridor has visual aspects which qualify as views. Those sections of the Drive which have ocean views qualify here and a majority of the land on the offshore side falls within the foreground of some portion of the drive which is a viewing station. To protect this visual relationship between the Drive and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 7 4111/ 41110 ocean in those areas which are not part of an identified vista corridor, no buildings should project into a zone measured 2 ' down- arc from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastline. " Planning Administrator Petru commented that the Coastal Specific Plan is basically saying that there may be areas outside the view corridor that still have protected ocean views across them. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the Commission had already discussed that this particular property is not in any viewing cone and the Staff had acknowledged that. Commissioner Mowlds further commented that the Coastal Specific Plan and the General Plan appear to have left out the five houses that were there. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he did not agree with that broad base interpretation that everything is protected and wonders if these properties were instead intentionally excluded. Chairman Katherman stated that he would like to examine the cumulative effect of the other three lots located to the south of the subject property. Commissioner Alberio stated that he supports Staff's recommendation. He has a problem with the size of the residence and wants the height lowered to protect the public view. Commissioner Clark noted that he sees no significant view impairment. Vice Chairman Byrd agreed, but added that he doesn't want the ridgeline to extend above the horizon. He would like to see the landowners do what they can to lower the house. Chairman Katherman directed Staff to 1. investigate the foliage removal; 2 . research the cumulative impact; 3 . revise views #4, #5 and #6 to lower the ridgeline to the greatest extent possible. Commissioner Clark moved and Commissioner Hayes seconded to re-open the Public Hearing and continue the item to on July 13, 1993. The motion carried 7-0. REPORTS A. Staff Director Bernard stated that there were no reports from Staff. B. Commission 1. Commissioner Clark requested that the subcommittee report on the proposed Amendments to the View PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 8 •J Restoration and Preservation Ordinance be the first item at 7: 00 p.m. on June 8, 1993 . 2 . Vice Chairman Byrd commented that the Commission's coffee supplies were used at the Budget Workshop. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no comments from the audience. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru asked the Planning Commission for two possible dates regarding the luncheon for former Environmental Services Director Dudley Onderdonk. The date of June 4 and 11 were decided. Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11:11 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1993 PAGE 9