Loading...
PC MINS 19931123'1 APPROVED 12/14/93 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. PRESENT: Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds, and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: Byrd (EXCUSED) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, and Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas. SELECTION OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN Commissioners Alberio and Hayes were selected as Co -Vice Chairpersons for the remainder of this Commission's meetings, by acclamation. COMMUNICATION Director Bernard reported Staff had received and distributed seven (late) letters, six for Agenda Item VIIIA and one for VIIID; and had also distributed a revised pre -agenda for December 14, 1993. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of November 9 1993. B. Miscellaneous Hearing; Dr. Don Saunders, 3807 Crest Road. (FF) (THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND, DISCUSSED UNDER NEW BUSINESS.) Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio to approve the minutes as corrected. (6-0) CONTINUED BUSINESS There were no Continued Business items. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 367 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1714• Mr. and Mrs. Milan Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report stating that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Milan Veteska have submitted ,_ Variance No. 367 and Grading Permit No. 1714 to allow a substantial addition to the existing structure and the accompanying grading associated with the addition. The addition and grading will occur in an extreme slope, since all of the remaining undeveloped portions of the subject lot exceed 35% grade. In order to grant a Variance request, the commission must be able to make each of the findings as specified in Section 17.60.020 of the Development Code. It is Staff's opinion that all of the expansion towards the east will completely eliminate the Los Angeles basin views from the adjacent property at 5502 Graylog Street and significantly impair the Los Angeles basin and ocean views from the property at 5421 Bayridge Drive. Thus, the project will be materially detrimental to other properties in the area. Additionally, it is Staff's opinion that the project is inconsistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The Plan discourages projects that will encroach on existing scenic views that are reasonably expected by neighboring residents. As mentioned previously, Staff believes that the project will cause adverse impacts to views from nearby properties. The subject property also falls under two of the General Plan's resource management districts which were established to consider the public's general health and safety and preserve the City's natural resources. Thus, the subject property is designated by the General Plan as a very delicate lot when considering further improvement. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed project would not be sensitive to the physcial constraints of the lot. For these reasons, which are described in more detail in the Staff Report, Staff recommends that the Commission deny the proposed project. Mrs. Milan Veteska, 5501 Graylog Street, RPV, CA landowner, stated that she needs more than 5 minutes to state her case before the Commission and more importantly she and her husband were not notified of the meeting. Gil Groisman, PO Box 220567, Newhall, CA, architect, stated that he and his clients did not receive any notification of the meeting nor did they receive a copy of the Staff Report. Chairman Katherman stated that the applicant and landowner need to have an opportunity to respond to the Staff Report. He suggested a Continuance of this item until the next Planning Commission meeting. He also asked if any speakers wanted to address the Commission on this particular item that evening, they may do so. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 2 Yvonne Goppert, 5507 Bayridge Road, RPV stated that she finds it hard to believe that the landowner and the applicant have not received the necessary notification. She also stated that many people would lose their views if this project is approved. Ms. Goppert expressed that had there been a frame with flags, she would of been more aware of the height of the structure that would be at the end of the canyon blocking out many of her neighbors views. She opposed to the project. Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that the section of the Code which requires the temporary frame silhouette and flags is for Height Variations, such as second story additions. This project application is for a Variance, and thus does not require a temporary frame. Anne Dixon, 5505 Grayloa, RPV stated that she lives next door to the subject property and has had conversations with the landowner and architect and have gone over plans and approves of their plans. She stated she was not notified of the meeting either. Stewart G. Widoff, 5502 Graylog, RPV stated that his view of Torrance and the Los Angeles basin from his backyard through his living room and kitchen area would be significantly impaired by the proposed project. He also stated that his real estate agent told him he would have a loss of between $15,000-$50,000 reduction in the value of his land. Chairman Katherman explained that Staff has recommended denial of this application, however, the Commission's decision has not been made. Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen to continue this item to the December 14, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed by acclamation. B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 750 - REVISION - APPEAL;- Mr. Earl Gantz, 3558 Bendigo Drive (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report stating that the Director's approval of the revised Height Variation has been appealed by a number of nearby residents. The primary basis for their objection to the project is that it will not maintain the compatibility of the neighborhood. As stated in the Staff Report, neighborhood compatibility was a consideration in the process of reviewing the revised application. It was the City's position that, as a result of bringing the subject storage area back towards the main portion of the house, and incorporating similar architectural features, that the revised project would be in character with the homes in the area. A photo -board was passed around which shows homes throughout the area that are similar in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 3 9 1] design and projection. The City, therefore, felt that the project satisf ied all of the criteria set forth in Development Code Section 17.02.040 and accordingly, approved the revised project. James Gordon, 3538 Bendigo Drive, RPV, stated that because the structure was not built according to the original plans a Stop Work Order was issued by the City. Mr. Gordon stated that the garage that was in the midst of construction would never have been approved. He continued to say that he does not have a problem with the originally approved plans to build a single story garage. He expressed his concern over the fact that he requested details of the oral approvals but did not receive them and that approved plans were not followed. James Allan, 3569 Bendigo Drive, RPV, stated that what was built was outside the scope of the approved plans. He expressed his frustration by saying that it is very difficult for the whole neighborhood. Commissioner Alberio assured Mr. Allan that the Commission has not approved the current construction that was stopped by the City. Commissioner Clark also assured Mr. Allan that over the past two years this Commission has heard many cases concerning after -the - fact construction and had to deal with them, so the Commission is very familiar with these applications. Bob Easton, 3566 Bendigo Drive. RPV, said that the structure looks like a warehouse. The plans are not the approved plans that were shown to the neighbors originally and is out of character with other structures on the street. He proceeded to disagree with various points in the Staff Report. Commissioner Mowlds and Mr. Easton discussed at length possible discrepancies regarding the footprint of the garage which Mr. Easton thought were on the original plans. Assistant Planner de Freitas stated that what was built is not what was on the approved set of plans. Commissioner Mowlds commented that the structure should go back to the original plans. The gable starts eight feet above what was shown in the drawings. Someone slipped in an entire floor over the garage. Director Bernard commented that Staff issued a Stop Work Order because the construction was not consistent with the approved plans. This did not appear to be an intentional violation. Staff has not encouraged nor discouraged the applicant. The applicant PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23t 1993 PAGE 4 Director Bernard commented that Staff issued a Stop Work Order because the construction was not consistent with the approved plans. This did not appear to be an intentional violation. Staff has not encouraged nor discouraged the applicant. The applicant wanted to know what his options were and was advised that the City would review a revision to the original Height Variation.. Chairman Katherman stated that the City cannot be everywhere all the time to watch these projects being constructed. The City is doing the best it can and sometimes these things simply happen. Commissioner Clark asked Staff if in the Staff Report, the term "unintentional violation", was used to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to being based on conclusive evidence. Director Bernard responded that was the case. Commissioner Alberio commented that the Staff has no time to directly oversee these projects to make sure they are being followed according to the approved plans. Dick Barkhuis, 3549 Bendigo Drive, RPV, stated that the structure seems to have been built overnight and it looks like a big wall in front. He feels that this structure, the way it is designed, does not belong on the street. He continued to say that you might as well let people build what they want and if the neighbors don't like it they can go to court about it. He also said that he is concerned about the construction traffic that has been clogging the street for the past year. The whole neighborhood is upset over this addition. Mike Davis, 15162 Carver, Redondo Beach, CA., applicant, stated that the owner, Earl Gantz, will direct his energies toward implementing the plans approved by the Director and will incur any economic impact of tearing down the exisitng portion over the garage and will do so immediately. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Davis what his role had been in this project. Mr. Davis responded that he is a professional engineer, and as an engineer, he (Mr. Davis) told Mr. Gantz that the plans that he was working from had not been approved. Mr. Davis told the owner (Mr. Gantz) that there was an extra floor added above the garage and knowing this the owner elected to proceed with the working plans. Commissioner Mowlds discussed with Mr. Davis at length the discrepancies of the plans and the actual structure. The public hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 5 a house next door, the Easton's house, which has a level over the garage which is habitable space. Commissioner Hayes commented that the level is much lower. Assistant de Freitas responded that he did not measure it so he doesn't know for sure if it is lower. Commissioner Hayes stated she stood there and saw that it was lower. Mr. de Freitas continued to say as with a few other houses on the street, the upper level comes flush with the lower level garage and, referring to the set of photos of the houses on Ganado Drive, he pointed out similar structures as that of the revised project. Commissioner Hayes stated that those houses in which Mr. de Freitas referred to on Ganado Drive are street level and they are set apart from each other a good distance as opposed to the Mr. Gantz's house. She does not think the comparison is appropriate since these homes were built before the incorporation of the City. Commissioner Hayes stated that she would prefer going back to the original plans and starting over. Commissioner Clark concluded that the reason Mr. de Freitas feels comfortable with the revised plans is that there are many other homes that have facades over the garage that gives similar appearance as to the revised plans and respects the front yard setback. The meeting recessed for a 10-minute break at 9:14 p.m. Commissioner Hayes stated again she would like the applicant to go back to the original plans. Commissioner Clark stated that much frustration and emotions have been built up in this case because the neighbors didn't get the project that they thought they were agreeing to. Commissioners Lorenzen and Alberio concurred with the suggestion to go back to the original plans and start over again. commissioner Alberio, stated that he is aware that it is going to cost money, since the rainey season is coming and there will be problems. Chairman Katherman agreed with the rest of the Commission as far as coming up with an ideal solution which would be accomplished in the quickest fashion possible to minimize the impact on the neighborhood and also to be consistent as possible with the original plans which were approved by the Commission. He continued to say that he doesn't know if this is a case of misrepresentation, but it makes one wonder. Chairman Katherman asked Staff from a procedural point of view, if the Commission were to uphold the appeal thereby denying the Height Variation Revision what would be the net result in terms of the garage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 6 Director Bernard responded that if the revision is denied (i.e. appeal upheld), the applicant will have to go back to the original plans that were previously approved by the Commission. Commissioner mowids moved to uphold the appeal thereby denying Height variation #750 -Revision thus require the homeowner to come back to Staff with acceptable plans that comply with the original intent. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion, which passed unanimoulsy. (6-0) Chairman Katherman came back to the Consent Calendar Item B as the next item. CONSENT CALENDAR B. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING• Dr. Don Sanders, 3807 Crest Road (FF) Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas summarized the project by stating that the applicant, Dr. Don Sanders, is proposing to place mechanical equipment atop one of the structure roof levels. The commission is reviewing the request because the equipment will exceed the approved ridge height of the building. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed location of the equipment will not cause any adverse impacts to the surrounding area. With the suggested screening that the applicant has agreed to erect, the equipment will not be visible from Crest Road, and it will significantly conceal the equipment from the homes that are situated upslope from the subject property in the "RPV Estates" tract. Staff therefore recommends that the commission approve the applicant's request subject to the suggested conditions of approval and any other conditions the Commission may deem appropriate. Dr. Don Sanders, 3807 Crest Road, RPV, CA showed the Commission the material in which the screening material would be made from. He stated that he is aware of the situation regarding the mechanical roofing and has done a couple of things to soften the appearance of the equipment. Originally, the water tower was suppose to be installed vertically. He went to the expense of laying it on it's side, as well as and lowering and screening it. He tried to locate it in the least obtrusive area of the roof, even though it exceeds the ridge height, it is less visible than if it were located in another area where it could be lower. It is not visible from the sight line from the street. Joe Addo, 3807 Crest Road, RPV, CA, architect, stated that he and Dr. Saunders are eager to make this equipment as invisible as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Mowlds voiced his objection to the mechanical screening stating that it looks like mechanical screening. He stated it has an metal appearance. Commissioner Clark commented that he didn't understand how the applicant ended up it this situation. Dr. Sanders responded that the residence was approved for everything except the mechanical equipment. That is why he is here tonight. Mr. de Freitas stated that back in 1992, when the project was reviewed and approved by the Commission, one of the portions of the Variance was for the excessive downslope height of the house which exceeded 301. He could not recall the ridge height that was approved, but the approval of the Variance that evening was specifically for that height to the ridge of the roof. There may have been mechanical equipment on the plans, but when the Commission and Staff reviews these projects and approves them, the conditions relate only to the ridge height, not for mechanical equipment. What was reviewed back then was basically the structure of the house, not the mechanical equipment on top of the house. Mr. Addo has indicated that the majority of the equipment will be lower than the chimney heights. Commissioner Clark asked if the Staff had received any complaints regarding this project. Mr. de Freitas responded that this item is a Miscellaneous Hearing item and does not require noticing, so therefore Staff had not received any comments from neighbors. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to approve, via Minute Order, the request subject to conditions of approval. The motion passed with Commissioner Mowlds dissenting. (5-1) PUBLIC HEARINGS C. VARIANCE NO. 365; Dr. and Mrs. Claudewell Thomas, 30676 Palos Verdes Drive East (TS) The Staff Report was waived for the project in which the applicant is requesting to allow construction of an 860 square foot second story addition which encroaches ten (10) feet into the required 20 foot front setback area. Staff recommends adoption of P.C. Resolution 93-43, thereby approving Variance No. 365, subject to conditions. There no requests to speak on this item. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to accept Staff's recommendation thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 93-43 approving Variance No. 365, subject to conditions. (6-0) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 8 • D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 657• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 177, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1711, MISCELLANEOUS HEARING; Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Winkler, 6100 Via Subida (TS) Associate Planner Terry Silverman presented the Staff Report stating that the applicant submitted a Grading application and request for a Miscellaneous Hearing for approval of a new single family residential structure, with a pool, tennis court, playing field, and various accessory structures including a detached pool house and guest house. Because the proposed grading is in access of is in excess of 1,000 cubic yards, approval by the Commission is required. The Miscellaneous Hearing has been requested to allow construction of four towers that will exceed the maximum height of 16 feet. To address correspondence that was submitted by several parties today, Staff clarified that, with exception to the proposed towers that are the subject of the Miscellaneous Hearing, the proposed structure will maintain a maximum height of 16 feet as measured pursuant to the Code. A Height Variation application is therefore not required, and the application is not subject to various requirements cited by the concerned parties. In fact, despite the size of the structure, if not for the proposed grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards, the Code allows for ministerial approval of the main residence by staff. However, the applicant has also submitted an application to allow construction of a second unit on the property. Because the second unit will have its own kitchen facilities, it is considered a separate residential unit by the City's Code. Pursuant to State law, because the City does not have its own Second Unit ordinance, the application must be reviewed under the provisions for a Conditional Use Permit. An Environmental Assessment and Initial Study have also been prepared in association with the proposed project. These analyses revealed that, while there may be impacts caused by the proposed construction, they have not found to be significant and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared. Despite the quantity of grading involved for this project, Staff feels that due to the uniquely large size of the property and the scope of improvements involved, and the fact that the grading will be balanced on site, the grading is not excessive beyond the primary use of the lot. Additionally, Staff feels that under the imposition of certain conditions, all of the required findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit can be made. Staff has therefore recommended in favor of the project, with conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 9 However, prior to the approval of the application, Staff is seeking direction from the commission regarding the removal of may existing trees on the property which impair views from several properties on Diamonte Lane. While strict interpretation of the Code would require trimming or removal of all of the mature trees on the property, Staff feels that the issue of privacy, the inherent aesthetic and monetary value of the mature trees, the buffering and screening of the new structure that the trees will provide, as well as the fact that most of the trees pre -date the lots from which views are impaired, create the need for all parties, including the City, the neighbors, and the applicant, to reach a balanced compromise for trimming and removal of the trees. The Public Hearing was opened. Patrick Killen, 912 Manhattan Ave., Manhattan Beach, CA., architect, gave a detailed history of the project. Mr. Killen continued to describe the various structures on the scale model that he prepared. He said that the owner, Mr. Marvin Winkler, and his family held a neighborhood meeting about 10 days ago last Saturday. They are making an attempt to work with their neighbors and City Staff. They want to try and compromise with their neighbors and get along. Mr. Killen voiced his opinion by saying that the tree issue is very difficult. Not everyone is going to be happy. So far to date, they have taken down 70 trees already and there are others that are yet to be removed from the site. He stated they have a pile of mulch four feet high, the size of a football field left over from all the other trees that were trimmed. Commissioner Alberio expressed his disappointment that the owners were not present at the meeting tonight. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Killen to name the various structures on the scale model. Mr. Killen responded the main house, guest house, etc. Mr. Killen also explained the parking access to the guest and in-law quarters. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. construction crew vehicles. Mr. accommodate all those vehicles on the parking from view. Killen about the parking of Killen responded that they would the site. They intend to screen Mr. Killen continued to say that the owners unfortunately have inherited the history of planting and growing foliage on the site that has impaired views. Mr. Killen proceeded to introduce the various members of the project team to the commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 10 Lee Kaplan, 12 Diamonte Lane, RPV, CA objects to the project because of the view impairment on his property caused by the magnitude of the estate. However, Mr. Kaplan also expressed concern that removal of the trees would provide a clear view of the new house from his property and that he preferred some of the trees to remain for screening purposes. Dr. Mel Rowan, 14 Diamonte Lane, RPV, CA stated that he would like the trees cutback to the lesser of 16 feet or the ridgeline of the new structure as specified in Proposition M. Angus Lorenzen, 15 Diamonte Lane, RPV, CA stated that he also would like the City to apply the conditions of Proposition M and Development Code 17.02.04084 to restore and preserve his view before issuing any permits for construction. Mr. Lorenzen then passed out written concerns regarding the project to the commission and Staff. Associate Planner Silverman addressed each point of concern that Mr. Lorenzen presented and discussion ensued among the commission and Staff. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru addressed the subject of view restoration and discussed recent Council direction on these issues with the Commission. Gail Lorenzen, 15 Diamonte Lane, RPV, CA stated that she would like the trees cut down to the ridgeline. She then proceeded to read from a letter the purpose of the Proposition M Ordinance. Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs. Lorenzen if she were in favor of lacing trees. Mrs. Lorenzen responded that she is very much against lacing of trees. Richard Stern, 13 Diamonte Lane, RPV, CA stated that he feels that the trees should be cut to the 16 ft. height limitation. He has waited for a long time to regain his view and have been told by real estate specialists that the view impairment has substantially reduced his property value. Mr. Howard Kehrl, 6110 Via Subida, RPV, CA stated that he is not opposed the project, but because his property is directly downhill from the project property, he is concerned with water runoff from a 401 cliff near the site and the noise generated by the construction. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the noise generated by the construction and hours of operation allowed by the Code. Ron Goldie, 2121 Ave of the Stars, LA. CA, representing the landowner, stated that he had been taking notes to report back to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 11 the applicant. He said nobody wants the property clear cut. He suggested everyone of the neighbors pick out certain trees that would give them their view back. He said he believes the tree issue will work itself out. Scott Yanofsky, 1142 Manhattan Ave., #311, Manhattan Beach, CA, Project manager, stated that he will advise the Winklers to work towards a compromise because they do not want to see all of the trees cut to 16 feet. Commissioner Hayes stated that it seems that the trees are the only real issue. Discussion ensued among the Commission and Mr. Killen regarding the issue of tree cutting and privacy issues. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that each neighbor mark the trees they want to see removed. The Commission directed Staff - to arrange for a meeting with the neighbors and representatives of the Winklers to work out a compromise. A subcommittee consisting of Chairman Katherman and Commissioners Alberio and Clark was designated to participate in the process. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commission Clark to continue the item to a special hearing starting at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, December 6, 1993. The motion passed . (6-0) Staff was directed to arrange for a location for the meeting. NEW BUSINESS There were no New Business items. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Director Bernard presented the (revised) Pre -Agenda for the December 14, 1993 meeting. 2. Director Bernard wished the Commission and their families a Happy Thanksgiving Holiday. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no comments from the audience. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. to an adjourned meeting on Monday, December 6, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1993 PAGE 12