Loading...
PC MINS 19940628APPROVED b 7/12/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 28, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Alison Mori. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: Commissioner Hayes (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Silverman, and Assistant Planner de Freitas. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Director Bernard introduced Ms. Alison Mori, the Planning Department's Student Intern for the summer, a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes who is (between semesters) attending the University of Pennsylvania working on her Masters Degree in Urban Planning. A late letter was received and two Resolutions were submitted by Staff for agenda Item VIIC (60 Rockinghorse Road). Also, placed before the Commission was information from the City Attorney for agenda Item VIIA (4301 Via Frascati). B. COMMISSION (NONE) CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 1994. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to accept the May 24, 1994 Minutes as written, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (5-0-1), with Commissioner Ferraro abstaining, as she was not present at the May 24, 1994 meeting. B. Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 94-26; Denying Encroachment Permit No. 24, which requested a six foot high fence and driveway gate located within the 12 foot public right-of- way at 30063 Cartier Drive (Dr. and Mrs. Habbal). (KK) Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 94-26, as written, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). C. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1738; Mr. and Mrs. Steven Lee, 28933 Scotsview Drive. (TS) • Vice chairman Mowlds moved to Approve subject to conditions, via Minute order, Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Grading Permit No. 1738, seconded by Commissioner At this point, Director Bernard suggested that the Commission hear the Continued Business Item VIA, Development Code Revisions, at the end of the meeting, as has been done in the past, and the members of the Commission agreed. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STREET VACATION• Mr. and Mrs. John Cigliano, 4301 Via Frascati. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report. The applicant is requesting vacation of approximately 600 square feet of City right-of-way adjacent to the rear of his property for the purposes of extending his rear yard. The Commission's responsibility would be to determine if this request is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff's position was that the project was consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the City Council had previously reviewed this request and made a determination, along with Public Works, that the portion of the public right-of-way requested to be vacated was of no further use to the city. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find that this request is consistent with the City's General Plan. Chairman Alberio stated that he had spoken with Staff before the meeting because of his concerns for City property being transferred to an private individual without any compensation. He stated that he had not had an opportunity to read the legal opinion from the City Attorney which was presented to the Commission just prior to the meeting and that there was a lot of material to analyze. He requested that the City's Director of Public Works, Mr. Trent Pulliam, who was present at the meeting, come to the podium for questions from the Commissioners. Director Pulliam said that he hoped some action could be taken that evening as the City Council's Public Hearing on this item had been continued to July 19, 1994. However, he stated that if the Planning Commission could not come to a conclusion, a time extension was possible. He stated that compensation to the City was a legal issue, but he explained that all costs associated with processing the vacation request would be passed on to the property owner, including the cost of a title report. These costs can be substantial, between $10,000 and $15,000. He suggested that the City Attorney should be consulted regarding the need for additional compensation, but he guessed that the City could not seek compensation for an abandoned easement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 2 Mr. Pulliam stated that the procedure for street vacation had been in place for a number of years. A prior City council action had eliminated any possibility of greatly widening Palos Verdes Drive East. Public Works estimated the maximum probable roadway width in the future and reserved enough right-of-way to accommodate any feasible widening. The applicant originally asked for a wider area, but Staff reduced it and felt comfortable with the amount of land reserved for the City. Chairman Alberio asked if this was merely an easement and Planning Administrator Petru said that was correct. She clarified that the City does not actually hold title to the land under the easement, but that it belongs to the Palos Verdes Homeowners Association. Vice Chairman Mowlds said that this street was not an arterial street according to the General Plan, but that it was an arterial street by usage. Director Bernard replied that Palos Verdes Drive East was identified as an arterial street in the General Plan. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Director Pulliam if relinquishing this easement would affect traffic sight distances. Director Pulliam said that a sight distance analysis was performed and there would be no effect. Director Bernard stated that possibly the concept of "easement" was not clear in the Staff Report and Resolution, and suggested that the word "easement" be added to words "right-of-way". He added that the Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council consider compensation as part of granting the vacation. Chairman Alberio explained that he had reservations because usually Cities had a process for disposing of public property and there was no mention of such a process in the Staff Report. Director Bernard emphasized that Staff was not trying to rush the Commission and, even though Mr. Pulliam had indicated that the City Council Public Hearing was continued to July 19, 1994, there was one more Planning Commission meeting on July 12, 1994. This would allow little time for Mr. Pulliam to prepare his city council report, but this time was available if the Commission felt it was needed for further analysis. Chairman Alberio said he would feel more comfortable continuing the item to give the Commission adequate time to read through the information from the City Attorney. Chairman Alberio Opened and Closed the public hearing, as there PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 3 were no speakers. Chairman Alberio moved to Continue this item, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: (2-4) AYES: ALBERIO, MOWLDS NOES: FERRARO, VANNORSDALL, WANG, WHITENECK Commissioner Ferraro moved to Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 94- 27 with the finding that the requested vacation is not contrary to the General Plan, subject to adding the word "easement" to the Resolution and recommending that the City Council consider compensation for the release of the easement, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: (5-1) AYES: FERRARO, MOWLDS, VANNORSDALL, WANG, WHITENECK NOES: ALBERIO B. EXTREME SLOPE NO. 36• Mr. and Mrs. Lee, 29718 Knollview Drive. (FF) Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to waive reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Joon Paik (applicant representing the landowner), 690 Wilshire Place, #216, Los Angeles. Mr. Paik stated that the applicant wished to add 423 square feet of new deck to the existing deck. He explained that it was almost impossible to increase the size of the deck without encroaching into the extreme slope. However, the maximum projection of the proposed deck was only 6' and the actual deck area over the extreme slope would be less than 84 square feet. Moreover, the deck would not impact views to the surrounding properties and that the underside of the deck would be screened with new landscaping. Commissioner Vannorsdall said that he had noticed there was a dog run below the present deck and it did not appear that there would be access to that area if the deck were enlarged. He was concerned that the applicant was not aware of this and might come back later to make a modification. Mr. Paik said no access to this lower area was planned. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Staff if the City Geologist would be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 4 consulted on this project and Director Bernard said that this would be part of the Building and Safety review. Commissioner Vannorsdall said that he was concerned about the fact that this was probably a fill lot. If the applicant was building on the fill section, he wanted to make sure that the proposed 181, footings were adequate to support the deck. Chairman Alberio Closed the Public Hearing. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to accept the Staff recommendation, with the conditions of approval, seconded by commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). Director Bernard noted that the P.C. Resolution would be signed by the Chairman that evening and that the Planning commission decision would be final, unless appealed within 15 days. C. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 791 - APPEAL, AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 469 - APPEAL• Dr. and Mrs. Ben Naghi, 60 Rockinghorse Road. (TS) Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report. Based on the determination that the second -story addition did not meet the Development Code criteria with respect to neighborhood compatibility and that there were no practical difficulties or unusual hardships that would warrant approval of fencing within the front yard setback area, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement denied the application for Height Variation No. 768 and Minor Exception Permit No. 479 on April 18, 1994. This decision came only after Staff contacted the owner and architect to discuss possible redesign for the second story addition to meet Code requirements. Both the architect and landowners stated that they were aware that the proposed structure did not necessarily meet Code criteria, but they declined to consider redesign, and requested that the project be reviewed as submitted. In the analysis of the Height Variation permit, Staff found that the proposed structure would be more than twice the size of the average home size in the neighborhood and almost 2,200 square feet larger than the next largest home in the neighborhood, which (unlike the subject property) was not visible from the street. Although the proposed structure would incorporate an articulated facade and varied ridgelines, most of the bulk of the proposed construction would be concentrated toward the front of the structure and, in contrast to the next largest home in the neighborhood, it would be highly visible from the street. With respect to the Minor Exception Permit, Staff found no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships to warrant approval PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 5 since the subject property was relatively flat and the existing structure was located approximately 361 from the front property line. Although at least 18 homes on Rockinghorse Road enjoy fencing similar to that proposed, all of them were built without permits from the City. Therefore, these were illegal structures and should not be used for comparison when considering whether or not the subject application should be approved. Staff noted that the landowner at 55 Rockinghorse submitted late correspondence indicating that they were unable to attend the meeting that evening; and, requested that, in the event the Planning Commission chose to uphold the appeal, the item be continued to July 12, 1994, in order to allow them to present their testimony. Since the option of redesign had already been provided to the applicants, and they declined, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's denial of the permit applications. Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Tom Blair (applicant's architect), 2785 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance. Mr. Blair explained why the appeal was being requested. He felt that issues such as "neighborhood compatibility" were subjective and they were seeking direction from the Planning Commission in this regard. , He mentioned that they did have another design option which reduced the size of the addition by about 1,500 square feet and lowered the height. He felt that their original design was well articulated by the use of hip roofs and staggered walls. He explained that the house was on a blind curve on Rockinghorse Road and that the house would be framed by foliage, setting it apart, so that it would not be directly adjacent to another house for visual comparison. In the initial stages of the development of the design, Mr. and Mrs. Naghi talked to their neighbors and received support for the project. Mr. Blair said that he walked around on the roof of the current structure to investigate privacy and view issues from the neighbors' point of view and had not seen any problems. Commissioner Ferraro asked if there were support letters from the neighbors. Mr. Blair said that one of the early requirements in the application processes was to obtain neighbor signatures stating that they were aware of the project. However, Mr. and Mrs. Naghi had not solicited any actual letters of support. They would be able to describe the reactions from the neighbors, which included support from the residents at 55 Rockinghorse Road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 6 Vice Chairman Mowlds said that a large house in itself was not objectionable and that he hadn't noticed the massiveness of the house when he drove down the street, but only was aware of the large size of the proposed structure when he turned around to come back up and looked at the f lags. Although square footage was a factor, because it could be measured easily, he felt that articulation was more important and he observed a lack of articulation on the east side of the house. In the new Development Code, the top story would be required to be set back from the front face of the first story. Mr. Blair said that the east wall was set back and asked if a two-story structure was objectionable. Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that a two-story structure was not objectionable in itself. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked whether the side windows looked directly into the neighbors' homes. Mr. Blair said that, when he walked on the existing roof, he had not been aware of a problem. Commissioner Wang commented that the letter from the next door neighbor indicated that second story windows would enable the applicant to look into their living quarters. Mr. Blair said that the side windows were not for viewing but primarily for ventilation. Mrs. Sheila Naghi (applicant), 60 Rockinghorse Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Naghi said that the reason they wanted to enlarge their home was for the enjoyment of their family of three children and frequent guests. As their architect had indicated, they were open to compromise, even though the neighbors with whom they spoke expressed approval of their addition. Since they plan to remain in their home for a long time, they are interested in maintaining a good relationship with their neighbors and took their interests into consideration in planning the addition. They specifically spoke with the two neighbors that they believed would be mostly impacted, the residents across the street and directly down the hill, and they both said they had no objections. Even Mrs. Butts at 55 Rockinghorse Road initially supported the project, but apparently had changed her mind. Mrs. Naghi described the neighborhood as having large lots with nice views; houses and lots of unique shapes and sizes; and lots of trees, bushes and fences to partially hide many of the houses. She added that some of the houses were very old and small, but the largest was approximately 5,100 square feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 7 0 17-1 Vice Chairman Mowlds commented on the Minor Exception Permit and said that a 6' fence in the 20' front yard setback had never been approved in the past. Mrs. Naghi said that her husband would speak about the fence and reiterated that they did not want their new home to look out of place in the neighborhood and that they were willing to compromise. Mr. Ben Naghi (applicant), 60 Rockinghorse Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Naghi said that the main reason they needed the fence was because they have children and dogs who use the front yard as a play area. He explained that it was not practical to place a fence closer to the house and that a 31611 fence was too low because it could be jumped over easily. He added that there was a very adequate area between the proposed fence and the roadway for people to park in front of the house. He offered photos of illegal fences along the street, even though those fences could not be considered in the approval of his fence. He said that he felt the proposed fence would add to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Mowlds said that Mr. Naghi's fence could not be approved just because there were many illegal fences on the street. Mr. Naghi said that security was another reason for requesting the fence because of the recent increase of crime in the area and that the Rockinghorse Homeowners Association was considering installing a gate at the entrance to the community, because of this same concern. Mr. Naghi commented that the side windows, which are in the bathroom, would be very high, with opaque glass, and were intended merely for ventilation. He stressed that they would not be able to look into their neighbors' homes from these windows. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Blair if 90 days would be sufficient time for him to work with Staff for redesigning the project and Mr. Blair said he would not need that long. Director Bernard noted that Ms. Silverman would be out of town for the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission meeting and suggested a continuance to August 9, 1994. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. Blair if that would be acceptable and he said yes. Director Bernard asked if the Commission wished to continue both items or take action on the fence that evening. Chairman Alberio said that he felt action should be taken on the fence that evening and that the second story issue should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 8 continued until August 9, 1994. Commissioner Vannorsdall told Mr. Blair that he would like to see at least 51 of second story articulation instead of 31 shown on the present drawings. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to Deny Minor Exception Permit No. 469 -Appeal and to Continue Height Variation No. 791 -Appeal to August 9, 1994, Vice Chairman Mowlds seconded. Approved (6-0). Chairman Alberio said that the Resolution Denying the Minor Exception Permit Appeal would be signed that evening and that there would be 15 days in which to appeal. He made sure the applicant understood that the second story was to be continued until August 9, 1994. At the request of the applicant, Planning Administrator Petru explained that a fence or wall may be 31 611 high in the front yard setback, without a permit. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the next door neighbor, the Butts family, had mentioned their Mt. Baldy view in their letter and he wondered if they realized that this was an unprotected view. Associate Planner Silverman noted that the Staff Report made reference to another application, Height Variation No. 726 at 13 Headland, for which the Planning Commission required redesign of the structure to protect the view of Mt. Baldy from the adjacent property. Vice Chairman Mowlds recalled that the unique factor in the Headland case, was that the appellant's house was specifically designed with 45 degree corners in order to take advantage of the Mt. Baldy view. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS) ; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Vice chairman Mowlds moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). 17.84.060(A)(1) [Damage and Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structures] Commissioner Whiteneck asked why fire was not included as a cause for replacing or repairing a nonconforming structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 9 • Pi Senior Planner Rojas explained that this portion of the Code discussed damage caused by a geologic condition, but that the Code mentioned, two pages later, damage "due to an involuntary act" which would include damage caused by fire. Director Bernard explained that every cause was not listed, thereby allowing a property owner to be eligible for reconstruction in many situations. 17.84.060(B)(4) [Damage and Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structures] Senior Planner Rojas explained that, as a result of discussions at Development Code Sub -Committee meetings, the reason for the December 31, 2009 date was researched. This was added to the Code in 1984 after Eastview was annexed to the City, because there was concern about replacement of the commercial buildings on Western Avenue. It was assumed that 25 years was an ample amount of time for replacement of a non -conforming structure (December 31, 2009 is 25 years from 1984). He explained that this provision was specifically adopted for the Eastview area, but also included all commercial zones within the City. 17.84.060(C)(4) [Damage and Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structures] Commissioner Ferraro asked how notification to the Planning Director prior to the restoration or replacement of any nonconforming structure was to be handled, and if a written notification would be necessary. Senior Planner Rojas said that replacement and reconstruction of a non -conforming structure generally required a Site Plan Review. Director Bernard agreed that when a Site Plan Review was not required (for interior damage, for example), written notification to the Director should be required and Senior Planner Rojas said he would make the change. Discussion of the Development Code Revisions was continued to July 12, 1994, by acclamation. NEW BUSINESS (NONE) REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the July 12, 1994 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 10 2. Director Bernard noted that Senior Planner Rojas had attempted to stay , on schedule for the Development Code Revision process. Unfortunately, other City priorities have been set for him, particularly environmental review and supervision for RDA projects, which has impinged heavily upon his time, of late. He has continued to work overtime on the Development Code Revisions, but the project will probably not be completed and sent to the City Council until the end of July/August 1994. The Commissioners thanked Senior Planner Rojas for all his efforts and noted that they had not noticed a 'slackened' pace; and, that, if anything, they were surprised how much had already been accomplished. 3. Director Bernard, on behalf of his Staff, wished the Commission and their families a safe and sane Happy Fourth of July weekend. B. COMMISSION 1. Vice Chairman Mowlds commented on the way in which the City handled the stockpiling of the dirt at 28933 Scotsview Drive. He found it unreasonable that the City (although not the Planning Department) would not allow the resident to pile the dirt in containers in the street. If the resident had put the dirt into dumpsters, vice Chairman Mowlds felt the resident could have left it forever. Director Bernard noted that a dumpster was suggested by his Department, but was not permitted by the City Department with jurisdiction in this area. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, spoke about Alaska, the new Southern California Marine Institute, dewatering wells, and the McCarrell Canyon debris basin. Mr. Tom Blair, 2785 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, an architect, expressed an interest in the Development Code Revision process currently in progress and offered his services to help with the revisions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 11 . r s ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ferraro moved, Adjourn. Motion carried and P.M. to the regular meeting (A JD MINUTES DISK #4 - MIN6 28) seconded by Commissioner Wang, to the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:55 on July 12, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 12