Loading...
PC MINS 19940322APPROVED 4/12/94 `3�►�t4 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:08 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chairman Mowlds. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, and Associate Planner Silverman. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Director Bernard reported there were three letters received after the Commissioners agenda packets were assembled and distributed. For Consent Calendar Item C, the time extension for Marriott Corporation, there were two letters, one from the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations, and another from Mr. Norman Taylor. For New Business Item A, Grading Permit No. 1681 (Mr. and Mrs. La Barba), there was a letter from the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association. There was also one exhibit to accompany the verbal Staff Report for this same item. All of these items had been placed before the Commission. B. COMMISSION Commissioner Ferraro expressed thanks for being allowed to attend the Planners Institute in San Diego sponsored by the California League of Cities and stated that she felt it provided very valuable information. Chairman Alberio mentioned several miscellaneous political and seminar notices he had received. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of March 8, 1994. Commissioner Hayes stated that, on page 11, in the next to the last paragraph, the word "went" should be inserted, to read: "...(which went into effect in 1993)...". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 1 Commissioner Wang stated that, on page 7, in the third paragraph, in the sentence beginning "He did not believe... the word "an" should replace the word "a" before "unusual"; on page 8, in the third paragraph, the word "are" should be removed; and, on page 9, in the sixth paragraph, that the word "the" in the phrase "...circumstances could be that (the) all the houses..." should be removed. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to approve the March 8, 1994 Minutes with the proposed changes, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0). B. Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 94-08; Approving Variance No. 374; permitting the redesigned project to encroach 518" into the required front yard setback area at 4232 Exultant Drive (David and Laura Purvis). (KK) Vice Chairman Mowlds made a motion to approve Variance No. 370, per P.C. Resolution No. 94-08, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-1), with Commissioner Hayes dissenting. Director Bernard reminded the audience that this decision was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days of this hearing. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 131 et.al - TIME EXTENSION (Marriott Corporation) Director Bernard noted that there were four speakers for this item. Commissioner Ferraro made a motion to remove this item from the Consent Calendar and consider it under New Business, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: (4-3) AYES: FERRARO, VANNORSDALL, WANG, WHITENECK NOES: HAYES, MOWLDS, ALBERIO Vice Chairman Mowlds made a motion to re -arrange the agenda to hear the New Business items (first the Marriott Conditional Use Permit No. 131 time extension request and then the La Barba Grading Permit No. 1681 revision) before Continued Business, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0). NEW BUSINESS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 131 et.al - TIME EXTENSION; (Marriott Corporation) northwest corner of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. (DJ) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 2 Requested Action: Approve a one-year time extension, as requested, through April 18, 1995, for the previously approved Marriott Senior Lifecare Facility. Planning Administrator Petru read the Staff Report. On February 24, 1994, the Marriott Corporation requested their fourth extension for approvals of the Senior Lifecare Facility on a 34 -acre site located at the north-west corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road. The conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit allowed the permit to have a life expectancy of two years from the date the application was approved. Extensions of one year could be granted by the Planning Commission, as long as they were requested prior to the expiration date. Since this permit is now scheduled to expire on April 18, 1994, the applicant has requested an extension and this request is before the Commission this evening. When the application was first approved by the City, the adjoining Homeowners Association filed a lawsuit against the City, primarily challenging the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for this project. That lawsuit was in the courts for several years and was finally settled in the City's favor. Once that lawsuit was settled, unfortunately, the economic conditions had changed from the time that the project was originally approved by the City, so the City has subsequently granted Marriott three time extension requests. In the meantime, the Marriott Corporation has reorganized internally and, at this point, they are not sure if they wish to proceed with the project as currently approved, or modify it. The Staff would like to give Marriott some time to decide what to do, and is recommending the fourth one-year extension, to April 18, 1995, because of the original delay and now the economic downturn. This is consistent with other extension requests, such as Long Point, that have been granted recently. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the Marriott Corporation would be required to start from the beginning to obtain permits if they changed the nature of the project. Planning Administrator Petru replied that it would depend on the type of modification. If they were not significantly changing the configuration of the buildings, and the use of the facility was still a Senior Lifecare Facility, probably the only requirement would be an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. There would have to be a public hearing process. If, as has been suggested by the Marriott Corporation, they decided to convert this into a condominium project, that would require a change in the land use designation, both in terms of the General Plan and the Zoning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 3 0 • designation. Marriott would then have to go through the land use change process and then a new Conditional Use Permit and Tract Map process. Commissioner Whiteneck asked whether or not Marriott was actively re-evaluating this particular site with a serious intent to complete the project. Planning Administrator Petru explained that a representative of the Marriott was present and that perhaps he could elaborate on that point. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that, even though the Marriott Corporation was not required to state their intent for the future of the property, it would be helpful to have as much data as possible in considering this extension. Chairman Alberio stated that this would be the last extension, but Director Bernard said that was not true. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the Planning commission could certainly make this the last extension and some thought should be given to this; however, Staff was not suggesting that the permit be conditioned in that way. Commissioner Wang asked if there was a limit set for the number of extensions which could be granted. Planning Administrator Petru replied that there was no limit for Conditional Use Permits, but there was for Tract Maps, which are controlled by State law. Since there is no map associated with this project, extensions can be granted indefinitely. Director Bernard added that, even though Tract Maps are different, the State, in recognition of poor economic conditions, passed a blanket extension of two years for all Tract Maps in September of 1993. Commissioner Ferraro asked if it was true, as stated in the letter from the President of the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association, that the Marriott corporation had the right to proceed with the project during the lawsuit. Planning Administrator Petru responded that this was correct; however, it would have been a major financial risk and Marriott opted not to do this. Vice Chairman Mowlds added that they would not have been to obtain financing until the lawsuit was settled. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 4 Paul Titcher, (attorney representing the applicant) Cox, Castle & Nicholson, 2049 Century Park East, 28th Floor, Los Angeles, 90067. When this project was originally approved a number of years ago, it was subject to numerous public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Environmental Impact Report was challenged by a group of homeowners and, subsequently, the Court determined that the Environmental Impact Report was adequate. Because of the litigation, it would have been unwise to begin construction during this period. Therefore, in his opinion, this was only the second meaningful extension request, because two of the extensions were approved during the lawsuit. He noted that, since the project was originally approved, the economy had weakened and Marriott needed the extension to determine if the nature of the project should be changed. Last summer, the State legislature enacted SB -428, a two-year blanket extension on all pending Tract Maps. This gave a clear signal that the State understands that these are difficult economic times, making automatic time extensions necessary. In response to Commissioner Vannorsdall's query regarding whether or not a recent market survey indicating the need for a senior care facility had been performed, Mr. Titcher responded that he did not know, but added that Marriott is continuing to receive phone calls from people who are interested in living at the facility, if it is ever built. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if there was a change in the type of facility to be built. Mr. Titcher replied that no definite decision had been made. As mentioned by Director Bernard and Planning Administrator Petru, Marriott had considered changes, but only to explore their options. If they decide to build a different type of facility, the project would have to come before the Planning commission. Commissioner Ferraro mentioned that she had read in the March 18 Daily Breeze that Marriott had sold 14 of their elderly care residences and asked if the corporation was no longer interested in this type of facility. Mr. Titcher said that Marriott was still involved with senior communities. He explained that there had been a major corporate reorganization in which Marriott was split into two companies, Host Marriott (which is involved with this particular site) and Marriott International. John Arand, 5731 Mistridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Arand said he wished to correct a statement made by Planning Administrator Petru. In September of 1989, Marriott arbitrarily put every one of their new construction projects on hold for a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 5 period of 18 months. This coincided with the period of litigation regarding this site and it appeared, to him, that Marriott would not have proceeded with this project, regardless of the lawsuit. Mr. Arand continued that when this project was originally brought before the City, it was brought in as a Parcel Map. The lot split did not go forward because it was not adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report and, when his Homeowners Association raised the issue, the parcel map was dropped from the proposal. In 1987, the Marriott Corporation contracted with the U.S. Army for a site in Virginia and purchased about a dozen more small facilities. At this point, Chairman Alberio interrupted Mr. Arand to ask the relevance of this information to the subject at hand. Mr. Arand noted that a residential building permit is valid for only one year, with one six-month extension after the initial life of a permit, whereas, a permit for a major project such as this one is allowed indefinite extensions. circumstances have changed since this project was approved almost seven years ago and he felt, at this time, that there was very little demand for a facility of this type. The Canterbury, a similar retirement community on Crestridge, was constantly advertising for new residents and had never had full occupancy. Chairman Alberio commented that Vice Chairman Mowlds was correct in saying that during litigation, no financial institution would be willing to provide funding and Marriott would have been foolish to begin construction. He noted that this proposed facility was very different from the Canterbury. Tony Sectreto, 5677 Mistridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Segreto stated that it was imprudent to accept a decision that was made five years ago and explained that, even though he was in favor of developing the site, he felt that the Marriott project was not appropriate. He added that, for the last six years, lack of maintenance to the property had made it a fire hazard. He felt that the cost to live in the Marriott facility would be too high for Peninsula residents, because The Canterbury, which is substantially more economical, was not fully occupied. He outlined the Marriott's reorganization and subsequent problems, which made their completion of this project unlikely, in his opinion. Chairman Alberio asked Staff to have a Code Enforcement Officer investigate the possibility of a fire hazard on the subject property. Planning Administrator Petru assured the Commission and the audience that this site has been disked each year and inspected by the L.A. County Fire Department. There was more than the usual concern during the last fire season and the Fire Department PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 6 confirmed that there were adequate fire breaks at every major vacant property in the City. In response to Chairman Alberiols question as to whether the land was fenced, Planning Administrator Petru said it was not. Planning Administrator Petru added that a Code Enforcement Officer would inspect the site for illegal dumping and abandoned cars, although she was not aware of any complaints regarding the lack of maintenance on this property. Daniel Blatt, (representing the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association) 29225 Stonecrest Road, Rolling Hills Estates. Mr. Blatt reiterated that there are problems internally because of the Marriott reorganization. He also agreed that a number of residents in the community were dissatisfied with this project. He detailed the problems associated with the dirt hauling process during grading and felt that this was not addressed adequately in the Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Blatt if he was unhappy with the land use and he said he was and that he would like to see this very steep lot used for a public park, because there would be much less grading required. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that the land was zoned for Institutional uses and asked Mr. Blatt if he had a preference for a type of institutional facility. Mr. Blatt replied that he had not given this any thought. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that the cost for living at this facility would not be too high and wondered if the reason The Canterbury had not been completely occupied was because it was not luxurious enough. He added that most of the land in the City zoned for Institutional uses was occupied by schools, so this project would be a good choice for developing this site. The choice of what would be built, from a business feasibility standpoint, was up to Marriott, not the City. As far as lack of maintenance of this property causing a fire hazard, Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that he did not understand why Mr. Segreto felt that the Fire Department could not access the area in the event of an emergency. He also did not foresee problems with dirt hauling. He noted that this project was discussed previously in much greater depth and only a time extension request was being considered at this time. Commissioner Ferraro expressed concern in regard to Staff's conclusion that this project would probably be revised substantially, requiring a full review, and she questioned whether PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 7 the original permit should be extended since it seemed that five years should have been be long enough for Marriott to begin development. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to grant the one-year time extension, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: (6-1) AYES: ALBERIO, HAYES, MOWLDS, VANNORSDALL, WANG, WHITENECR NO: FERRARO Chairman Alberio reminded the audience that this decision was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days of this hearing. B. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1681 - REVISION; Mr. and Mrs. James La Barba, 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West (a.k.a. 30101 Palos Verdes Drive West). (TS) Requested Action: Revise Condition No. 3 of P.C. Resolution No. 93-16, to require the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association to remove trees in accordance with the established CC&Rs for the tract, in lieu of recording a City Covenant to Maintain Property to Protect Views. Associate Planner Silverman read the Staff Report. The Planning Commission approved this project in July of 1993 to allow construction of a new single-family residence. The subject property is located adjacent to the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association common area and a portion of the grading will occur within the common open space lot of the tract. The Planning Commission imposed conditions on the grading and, among those, was the removal of foliage for view restoration in exchange for allowing the proposed structure to encroach into the ocean view. Along with those conditions, the Planning Commission also required the recordation of a standard City Covenant to Maintain Property to Protect Views. The applicant and the Homeowners Association have approached the City, requesting that the condition be deleted, and requiring the Homeowners Association to remove the trees, in accordance with the recorded CC&R's for the tract, instead. Staff has consulted with the City Attorney, who concurred, and revised language was proposed for that condition. After subsequent discussions with the applicant and the Homeowners Association, the language has been further clarified to identify the areas in which foliage should be removed. This is Exhibit "A", which has been distributed to the Planning Commission this evening, and the new language is underlined. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 8 Chairman Alberio stated that this project was approved by the previous Planning Commission, only three of which are currently serving, and the remainder of the current Planning Commission may need to be filled in on some of the background, of this project. There were extensive discussions and hearings before approval was granted, in which the views of the surrounding residence were considered. one of the conditions placed on the approval was that the applicant and the Homeowners Association were asked to record covenants to trim and maintain foliage on the site to protect views. The Staff and Planning Commission has since been learned that enforcement of the CC&Rfs, which regulate the tract and the members of the Homeowners Association, would have accomplished the same objective with regard to Common Open Space Lot No. 26. Now, Staff was asking that the previous conditions of approval be modified to incorporate this new information. Director Bernard clarified that this request came from the applicant, not from Staff. Chairman Alberio asked about the possibility of grading being required on a third lot. Associate Planner Silverman replied that a discussion that day, at Staff level, revealed that this would not affect the Planning Commission's decision and that this could be adjusted later between Staff and the applicant. Vice Chairman Mowlds explained that the Coastal Specific Plan, which applies to land between Palos Verdes Drive and the ocean, requires that no house should be built above the horizon. It was determined by the previous Planning Commission that vegetation already blocked the view of the ocean in this area. Therefore, there was a tradeoff made to allow the house to encroach into view if the trees were removed or thinned. Later investigation revealed that this tradeoff was not necessary because that vegetation would have to removed anyway in accordance with the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association CC&Rfs. The Homeowners Association planned to have their designee (Mrs. and Mrs. La Barba) trim the trees but there is no statement guaranteeing that they will do this. George Shaw, (architect representing the applicant) Edward Carson Beall & Associates, 23727 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance 90505. Mr. Shaw stressed that the applicant was more than willing to comply with Condition No. 3 for removal of trees on the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association's property and that the Homeowners Association and Mr. and Mrs. La Barba have an agreement to this effect. When the La Barba's bought the property, they took on the responsibility from the previous owner who had planted those trees and have continued to maintain them. However, the wording of the original Condition No. 3 was found to be in conflict with the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 9 Lunada Pointe CC&Rs. The original condition addressed removal of trees only on all of Lot No. 26, not a specific section. Lot No. 26 is Lunada Pointe open space, covering a large portion of the east side of the project. In order for the Homeowners Association to agree to the conditions set by the Planning Commission, the Association wanted the area to be specifically designated. According to legal counsel for the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association, the Association could not sign a City Covenant. The problems with the original Condition No. 3 are outlined in a letter, provided to the Planning Commission, from one of the directors of the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association. The wording in Staff's recommendation, for revised Condition No. 3, has been agreed upon by the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association, the La Barbas, and the City Attorney and will meet the objectives of the original condition. As the Homeowners Association's designee, the La Barbas, will trim the trees and the view will be restored, as it was intended by the original condition. The wording is simply being changed to satisfy the requirements of the Homeowners Association. He noted that a significant amount of trees are being removed from the La Barba's property because they also obstruct views and Mr. and Mrs. La Barba have agreed to sign the City Covenant for their property. Vice Chairman Mowlds did not see how the conditions in Exhibit "All obligated the La Barbas to trim the trees, since they are the property owners being given the right to extend their home above the horizon. He felt there should be more a more specific designation in the revised Condition No. 3, such as the La Barba's street address. Chairman Alberio advised that the City could not grant the right for one landowner to go on another landowner's property and that this would have to be arranged between Mr. and Mrs. La Barba and the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association. Mr. Shaw offered a copy of the private agreement to be kept on file with the City. Vice Chairman Mowlds was concerned that this agreement would not provide a binding guarantee and he felt it was important for the City to have a document obligating the two parties to one another. Mr. Shaw said that it appeared that the City already had this guarantee because the tree trimming was a condition of approval for the project at 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West. He assured the Planning Commission that Mr. and Mrs. La Barba would do whatever was necessary to record the document to run with the land. Associate Planner Silverman said that the Commissioners also have attached to the Resolution, Exhibit "B", which shows that this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 10 • covenant is already in place. enforcement power. This would provide the City with Vice Chairman Mowlds disagreed and felt that the City had no enforcement power in this matter. He felt that the only party who had a vested interest in trimming the trees was the applicant. The Homeowners Association had not trimmed the trees in eight years. He was not sure that the any of the documents provided the La Barbas access to the Homeowners Association's property to trim the trees. Mr. Shaw admitted that this had been his concern all along. If the Homeowners Association became uncooperative, the La Barbas would not be able to build their house. Chairman Alberio mentioned that he had talked to the City Attorney that day who said, regardless of the conditions of approval from the City, the Homeowners Association's CC&Rls provide the only legal power. Associate Planner Silverman stated that the revised Condition No. 3 insured that the requirements of the CC&Rls are met sooner, but that the Resolution could be further revised. Chairman Alberio said that this would probably be necessary. Two elements that he felt were important were that the agreement be tied to the land and that the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association's recorded CC&Rls be considered. Commissioner Vannorsdall was concerned that the La Barbas be protected so that they were not prohibited from obtaining a building permit because of someone else's lack of performance. Mr. Shaw noted that the La Barbas could not submit their plans for plan check until the trees were cut down. Associate Planner Silverman noted that Mr. and Mrs. La Barba have already realized the possibility of their not being able to meet the conditions for the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association and have discussed with Mr. Shaw a possible redesign of plan for project to eliminate any grading offsite. This redesign would mean that the project could proceed without the need for a revised permit. Mr. Shaw advised that this option had been explored and that the current house could not be built without some grading on the Homeowners Association's property. Associate Planner Silverman said that an alternative plan Mr. Shaw had presented required less than 20 cubic yards of grading. This PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 11 would not require a permit, but would still require authorization from the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association. Bruce Burrell, 87 Marguerite Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Burrell stated that he is a member of the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association; however, he stressed that he was not representing the Association. He stated that he was in favor of the project and hoped it would be built soon. He believed that there already might be provisions, tied to a master landscape plan, in the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association's CC&Rls to pinpoint responsibility for the tree trimming, This master landscape plan empowered the City to oversee the landscaping in the common areas of the tract. Exhibit "B", recorded on October 11, 1988, states that the Director of Planning has this right, and indeed clarifies the area on the property in Section No. 4 of Exhibit "B" as the area being discussed this evening. When the subdivision was originally approved, those trees were allowed to stay, with the condition that, in the future, they would be trimmed, or removed, at the Planning Director's bidding. Therefore, that opportunity to allow the Director of Planning to oversee what happens on this specific piece of property is already in place and has been recorded with the CC&Rls. This is not a general requirement for the total subdivision; this is specific to the northeastern portion of Lot 26. The Homeowners Association discussed this at its recent annual meeting and the membership was in favor of trimming trees to insure the view corridor. With this and the fact that the La Barbas are in favor of taking responsibility for these trees at the direction of the Director of Planning, it appeared to Mr. Burrell that a solution was already in place. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the agreement between the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association and the La Barbas was discussed at the annual meeting, including the fact that the La Barbas had agreed to pay the Homeowners Association's legal fees, which, at the time, amounted to $6,000. Mr. Burrell replied that he was not sure of the exact figure but the La Barbas indicated that they were willing to fully cooperate with the Homeowners Association. At this time, in response to Vice Chairman Mowlds' request, Mr. Shaw returned to the podium. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked him if this agreement was made. Mr. Shaw answered that he felt this was not relevant to tonight's discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 12 • • Vice Chairman Mowlds emphasized that he was bringing this up to show that the relationship between the La Barbas and the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association had not always been completely harmonious and there were legal fees involved. Chairman Alberio said he agreed with Mr. Shaw that this information had no bearing on the Commission's decision. Vice Chairman Mowlds stressed that if there had been problems in the past between the two parties, it may be an indication that they will not be able to work together to accomplish the tree trimming. Mr. Shaw advised that the two parties were working harmoniously together at the present time and had been working on this relationship since last June. He said that he was not at the Homeowners Association meeting, but believed that all the members voted for the agreement. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the City needed a copy of the agreement between the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association and Mr. and Mrs. La Barba. Chairman Alberio said that this agreement had nothing to do with this issue. Commissioner Whiteneck asked why was it not relevant. He felt that the Planning Commission was being asked to approve a condition to insure the view, yet were being told that the people who were guaranteeing to provide this view had no legal control over the land involved. Chairman Alberio said that the only relevant legal document was the Homeowners Association's recorded CC&Rls. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if there was anything in the CC&Rls which requires the approval of the City. Director Bernard noted that deviation from the approved landscape plan required the approval of the City. Planning Administrator Petru added that if the Homeowners Association amended the CC&Rls, they would have to notify the City of that fact and the City would then have 30 days to either approve or reject those changes. Mr. Shaw repeated that, if this agreement was important to the City, a copy could be provided. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 13 Director Bernard said that the City was not concerned with the terms of the agreement or the amount of the legal fees and would probably not even want to have this information in the files. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he did not think the legal costs were pertinent but, did believe that the City would want to have the agreement on file to be assured that there would be compliance by both parties. Planning Administrator Petru said that, if there was any dispute in the future over the trees that are located on Lot No. 26, the City would address those concerns to the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association, because they are ultimately responsible for this property. If there was a private agreement between the Association and the La Barbas, the burden would fall upon the Homeowners Association to work out the problem with the La Barbas or any future landowner. The City would not be involved in that and would not need to have copies of the agreement between these two parties on file. vice chairman Kowlds made a motion to continue this item until April 12, 1994 when Staff could bring back language that tied together the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association and Mr. and Mrs. La Barba. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:43 P.M. and reconvened at 8:52 P.M. CONTINUED BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS• City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Senior Planner Rojas read the Staff Report. As a result of the Planning Commission meetings and the Sub -Committee meetings, Articles VI and VII have been conceptually reviewed in their entirety. In addition, draft language of select chapters has been brought back and reviewed by the Planning Commission. At the last public hearing on this item on March 8, Staff expressed an intent to bring back the draft language for the remaining chapters of Article VI and VII. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, Staff provided only one chapter for the Commission's review (Chapter 17.48), dealing with lot setbacks, open space area and building height. Draft language for this chapter was originally reviewed by the commission on February 22 and, based on comments made that evening, Staff made some revisions and is now bringing it back for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 14 • • the Commission's review. In addition, each Commission received a copy of the Table of Contents for revised Title 17 for review if the Commission wishes. 17.49.030 [Setbacks) Vice Chairman Mowlds said he thought it had been agreed upon to remove the word "under" from the first sentence of this section. Senior Planner Rojas replied that it was his understanding that the word "under" restricted subterranean structures from being built into the setback. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that this was covered in another section. Senior Planner Rojas explained that this section established the ground rules for setbacks and, under "Exceptions", it clarified the setbacks for subterranean structures. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if this included foundations. If the setback was from the property line to the wall of the building and, the Code was changed to allow 'IT" footings, the footings would go in the setback. Footings must be discussed and if they are going to be excluded, the Code must state this. Senior Planner Rojas suggested that this be added in 17.48.030(E)(6) regarding subterranean structures. Vice chairman Mowlds asked that Staff bring that statement on a separate sheet at the next meeting for the commission's review. 17.48.030(C)(1) [Hillside Setbacks] Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if this section applied to both an upslope and a downslope and Planning Administrator Petru said yes. Commissioner Vannorsdall commented that for a reduction in the front yard setback, it seemed like the narrow margin (between less than 25% and no more than 35%), that would almost never apply and he wondered why this statement was included. Planning Administrator Petru answered that there were several very steep lots created before the City was incorporated that are well in excess of 35% across the entire lot. The concept was that it was easier to build the home closer to the street in order to reduce grading for the driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 15 • Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the minimum 201 front yard setback for garages with direct access should be changed to 251 to be consistent with the new RS standards. Senior Planner Rojas said those types of internal consistency changes would be made once the Commission reviews Article 1 (RS Development Standards) and adjustments would be made throughout the Code. 17.48.030(Q(2)(cLL [Hillside Setbacks] Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the grade ratio of 2:1. He was not suggesting that it be changed, but mentioned that this was a different way of expressing degree of slope. Chairman Alberio agreed that it could be a percentage or a ratio and that both were commonly used in the building industry. Director Bernard suggested that, for clarity, possibly degree of slope should be expressed in both ways. Commissioner Wang noticed than the word "then" should be replaced with the word "than" in the first sentence of this paragraph. 17.48.030(E)(2)(a)(2) [Setbacks - Exceptions] Vice Chairman Mowlds wondered why the measurement of six feet six inches is shown in the sentence beginning "No part of such minor structure shall exceed six feet six inches..." rather than just six feet to match the six foot wall. Senior Planner Rojas replied that it had always been six feet six inches. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that it be changed to six feet and the rest of the Commission agreed. 17.48.030(E)(4) [Setbacks - Exceptions - Garages] Vice Chairman Mowlds disagreed with the statement that "An applicant may receive setback reductions converting an legally existing indirect access driveway to a direct access driveway ... through a Minor Exception Permit or Variance". He felt that this kind of change should always require a Variance. Senior Planner Rojas said that for less than a 20% reduction in a front yard setback only a Minor Exception Permit is required. For more than 200, Variance is required. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 16 Vice Chairman Mowlds felt strongly that this should be changed to always require a variance because of the problems that have consistently been encountered with these driveway changes. Chairman Alberio felt that Staff had been doing a good job handling Minor Exception Permits in the past, and, if there was a problem, it has been appealed to the Planning Commission. He saw no reason to make the change. After a lengthy discussion between Vice Chairman Mowlds, Planning Administrator Petru, and Senior Planner Rojas, the Commission decided that a Variance should be required for any reduction in the required front yard setback for a direct access driveway. Staff will make the corresponding change to Chapter 17.66. 17.48.040 (Open Space Area) Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if second story balconies, unsupported byo poles, are allowed to be built into the required setback. Planning Administrator Petru said that balconies are not considered architectural features and therefore, are not allowed to encroach into the required setback. Commissioner Hayes clarified that a balcony could encroach into a setback, but only with an approved Variance. 17.48.050(A)(3) (Building Height] Vice Chairman Mowlds asked for clarification of the third sentence beginning "Any other roof -mounted equipment ... He felt it was very confusing and should be rewritten. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1994. 2. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission Development Code Sub -Committee meeting of April 13, 1994. 3. Upcoming Planning Commission Training Schedule. B. COMMISSION - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE 17 2 COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items} Ms. Lois Larue commented that the proposed debris basin in Mc Carrell Canyon is unnecessary and would destroy the natural beauty of this canyon. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed to meet privately with Ms. Larue to further discuss this subject. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hayes moved., seconded by commissioner Ferraro, to adjourn. Motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:22 P.M. Adjourned to the Planning commission Development Code Sub -Committee meeting on Wednesday, April 13, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park. Next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. (A JD MINUSES DISK #2 - DRFTMIN3 22) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 1994 PAGE IS