Loading...
PC MINS 19940913APPROVED 10/25/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 13, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:09 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Chairman Alberio. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio. ABSENT: commissioner Vannorsdall (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, and Assistant Planners de Freitas and Klopfenstein. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF - None B. COMMISSION - None CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 1994. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to approve the minutes of August 9, 1994, as written, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro with commissioner Hayes abstaining as she was not present at the August 9, 1994 meeting. Approved (5-0-1). B. Planning Commission Minutes of August 23, 1994. Commissioner Hayes noted that, on Page 3, fifth paragraph from the bottom, the names of the Commissioners making the motion were not included. Commissioner Wang moved to approve the Minutes of August 23, 1994, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck with Commissioner Ferraro abstaining as she was not present at the August 23, 1994 meeting. Approved (5-0-1). C. Time Extension Conditional Use Permit No. 136, et. al. - Monaghan Company; Long Point, 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South. (CP) Commissioner Hayes moved to approve the extension, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). D. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 791 - APPEAL: Dr. and Mrs. Ben Naghi, 60 Rockinghorse Road. (TS) At the August 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission accepted the applicant's proposed drawing as shown with the condition that the trellis and the roof be removed from the upper deck and that opaque glass be used in all windows facing the residences at 54 Rockinghorse Road and 55 Rockinghorse Road. The modified Resolution was returned this evening for the Chairman's signature. 4 Chairman Alberio noted that opaque glass should be included in the project conditions. Planning Administrator Petru said that this would be added to Exhibit "A", Conditions of Approval. Chairman Alberio agreed to sign the Resolution this evening, as modified. Chairman Alberio noted that there was a 15 -day appeal period before the Commission's action became final. 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) Senior Planner Rojas presented the Staff Report and introduced the City's housing consultant Sandra Genis, who discussed affordable housing issues, including recent changes in State requirements. A discussion ensued between the Commission and Ms. Genis, including Section 17.11.020 of the Affordable Housing chapter of the Development Code. The discussion of this Section resulted in a change suggested by Ms. Genis, to read as follows: "Where feasible, new residential development of five (5) or more dwelling units shall be required to provide up to 5% of all units affordable to very low income households or provide up to 10% of all units affordable to low income households." Senior Planner Rojas noted that the City Attorney had worked extensively with Staff in the past to provide a housing element which was legally defensible. once the City Attorney has reviewed this new language, it will be brought back to the Commission for final approval. The Commission then reviewed various sections of Title 16 and 17 of the Development Code, page by page. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 2 Section 16.12.120 [Parcel Maps, Waiver - certificate] Vice Chairman Mowlds was looking for a method to tie together approval of Vesting Parcel and Tentative Tract Map to the approval of the grading application. Senior Planner Rojas replied that when there have been Parcel Map or Tentative Tract Maps submitted for approval, usually it will be necessary for the maps and related applications to be submitted together. Planning Administrator Petru added that there was a draft requirement that applications for tract amendments would come before the Planning Commission and then the City Council. Currently, they all come before the City Council only. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the Forrestal Vesting Tract Map was approved without a grading plan. Chairman Alberio mentioned that Council approved the geology and litigation followed. Chairman Alberio asked if this was within the purviews of the Planning Commission. It was his understanding that currently this would only go directly to the City Council. Planning Administrator Petru said that this was addressed in Title 15, Landslide Moratorium, but this was a different matter. She added that a Grading Permit would be needed for the application to be deemed complete. Commissioner Hayes asked if was there a Grading Permit for Forrestal and wasn't the grading excessive. Planning Administrator Petru answered that there had been a Grading Permit but that it was approved without geological information; and, therefore, at that time, it was not known that the grading would be excessive. Vice Chairman Mowlds requested action that would prevent the same type of problem in the future. Senior Planner Rojas explained that Forrestal was unique because originally the early approval came from the County. He felt that if current procedures are followed, this shouldn't happen again. Chairman Alberio thanked Vice Chairman Mowlds for bringing up this question. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 3 Section 16.16.050 [Tentative and Final Tract Maps, Final Tract Map - Filing and Review] Commissioner Hayes offered two corrections: On the fifth line from the top of the page, the words "Environmental Services Department" should be replaced by the word "Director" (as consistent with the rest of the draft Code). In letter "C", third line from the bottom of the paragraph, three options should be listed: (1) that was accepted as submitted (2) accepted with changes or (3) rejected. Senior Planner Rojas said he would make these changes. Section 16.20.100(1)(3) [Dedications and Improvements, Standards] Commissioner Hayes said that the word "City" should be changed throughout the code to indicate "City Council" (where appropriate) . Chairman Alberio replied that it is implied that "City" indicates the City Council. Senior Planner Rojas stated that this would be clarified however. Section 17.96 [Definitions] Commissioner Hayes suggested that definitions be listed by category. For example, instead of "Parcel Map, this should be listed under "Maps, Parcel", with the other types of maps listed in the same fashion. She added that this should apply throughout the definitions section, such as "Schools, nursery", etc. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed. Director Bernard and Senior Planner Rojas said these modifications would be made, but noted that it was debatable as to how each definition should be listed and the general rule was to arrange them in the way in which the planners and public refer to these topics and the way they would look for them. Section 17.96.140 [Definitions, Apartments, Community] Commissioner Hayes said that, in the third line, "anal' should be changed to "an". Senior Planner Rojas thanked Ms. Hayes for the correction. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 4 Section 17.96.230 (Definitions, Basement] Vice Chairman Mowlds questioned whether a basement (which was only partially underground, built on a slope) which had doors that opened out to a patio should be considered, at least partially, simply interior rooms. Senior Planner Rojas said that differentiation could be made. Planning Administrator Petru commented that UBC required access to the outside probably should be exempted. Section 17.96.280 (Definitions, Building Frontage] Commissioner Hayes noted that, in the second line, 11pr11 should be changed to "or" and Senior Planner Rojas said he would make the change. Section 17.96.340 (Definitions, Caissons) Vice Chairman Mowlds noted there was no definition shown for "caissons". Senior Planner Rojas said it had not been formulated as yet but that it would be. He added that there were other definitions to be developed as well, and that these definitions would be completed. Section 17.96.400 [Definitions, Coastal Appealable Development] Commissioner Hayes said that, in the third line, "nay" should be replaced by "any". Senior Planner Rojas thanked Ms. Hayes for her observation and said he would make the correction. Section 17.96.530 (Definitions, Design) Vice Chairman Mowlds asked for a clarification of "design", and Planning Administrator Petru explained that this referred to subdivision design. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested this be re -written for clarity's sake. Section 17.96.530(B) (Definitions, Design) Commissioner Hayes mentioned that "grads" should be "grades". Senior Planner Rojas said he would also make the correction. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 5 Section 17.96.590 [Definitions, Educational Institutions] Commissioner Hayes requested a correction in the third line from the bottom to change "doe" to "does" and Mr. Rojas said he would make the change. Section 17.96.610 (Definitions, Excavation) Commissioner Hayes mentioned that, at the end of the second line, the word 'lint" should be "into". Senior Planner Rojas said he would make the correction. Section 17.96.830 [Definitions, Hearings Officer] Commissioner Hayes said that this sentence should say only "Director", not "Director of Planning". Section 17.96.910(B) [Definitions, Lot] Commissioner Hayes suggested that "Department of Planning" be changed to the "Director" and Senior Planner Rojas agreed. Section 17.96.1220(A) (Definitions, Parking Area) Commissioner Hayes noted that, in the first line the word "and" should be replaced with "an". Section 17.96.1270 [Definitions, Pool, Swimming or Ornamental] Commissioner Whiteneck asked why the depth was changed from 1811 to 241; and, Planning Administrator Petru said the Code was updated to be consistent with the already adopted Uniform Building Code. Section 17.96.1270 [Definitions, View, Far] Vice Chairman Mowlds brought up the subject of "Far Views" and asked from where this change came. Planning Administrator Petru explained that it came from the joint subcommittee of the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Commission and added that and that there was a very strong sentiment on the View Restoration Commission that residents should have multiple viewing areas because of the potential of someone having different views from different areas of the house and wishing to be able to protect each one of those distinct views from each viewing areas. As it is currently written, the Code says only the best and most important view may be protected and this puts the landowner in position of picking that one area. She states this may work well for structures, which do not move, but not for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 6 0 E foliage, which grows. E Vice Chairman Mowlds pointed out that the View Restoration Commission was not even in a position to hear cases at the present time due to continuing litigation and Chairman Alberio and replied that this was not an issue. Vice Chairman Mowlds argued that it was an issue because the Planning Commission would have to use this language in judging new houses and additions. Planning Administrator Petru said this would apply only to View Restoration items, which the Planning Commission does not hear. Vice chairman Mowlds felt that if this was the case, a sentence should be added to state that none of this applied to a structure. Chairman Alberio said that he did not wish to change this now and felt that it should go to the City Council for their consideration. Senior Planner Rojas mentioned that later in the meeting there would be more discussion about City Council direction given at the September 6, 1994 meeting, but one of the messages given was that the definition revisions that were agreed to by the joint Commission's subcommittees be implemented into the Code. After further discussion, Commissioner Hayes suggested that this be deleted and that the Council could decide whether or not to put it in. Planning Administrator Petru agreed that certainly was an option; and, in that way, the View Restoration commission would, appropriately, be able to advocate that position themselves. Chairman Alberio felt that, instead, this section could be merely highlighted for further consideration by the Council. Planning Administrator Petru pointed out that, if there was a majority opinion on the Planning Commission that this language should not be in the Code, it could be highlighted for the City Council that this was the joint subcommittee's recommendation, but that the majority of the Planning Commission disagree. Chairman Alberio agreed with that option. Planning Administrator Petru requested that both recommendations could be stated for "straw vote" purposes. A straw vote was taken with following results: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 7 0 Pi Option A: To leave the language as it is currently Hayes No Ferraro No Whiteneck No Wang Yes Vice Chairman Mowlds No Chairman Alberio Yes Option B: To re -word the language as suggested by Planning Administrator Petru: To delete the underlined sentence completely and to clarify that "viewing area" means the area of the structure where the owner and the City determine that the one best and most important view exists Hayes Yes Ferraro Yes Whiteneck Yes Wang Yes Vice Chairman Mowlds Yes Chairman Alberio No Option B was chosen by the commission. Section 17.96.1990 (View Restoration Commission) Commissioner Hayes thought that, in the second line of the second paragraph, "View Restoration Planning Commission means a commission with a limited purpose", and that the word "Planning" should be deleted to avoid confusion. Planning Administrator Petru explained that the purpose of defining this body as a "planning" commission was because, in considering Code amendments, the Code assigned to the View Restoration Commission the normal role the Planning Commission takes in considering Code amendments. Commissioner Hayes replied that she understood that but felt that by dropping the word "planning", the View Restoration Commission would be acting as a commission for the City Council. Director Bernard suggested the languages states "a commission for limited planning purposes" and Commissioner Hayes agreed that would clarify the meaning. Section 17.96.1090 (Neighborhood Character] Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that the concept of neighborhood compatibility be cross referenced as "neighborhood compatibility (see neighborhood character)." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 8 RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:40 P.M. and reconvened at 8:58 P.M, during which time a cake and best wishes were presented to Mr. Ken Huthmaker, reporter with the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, who has been reporting news of the Planning Commission and the City Council for a little over a year and will be taking a position with the City of Gardena. Chairman Alberio, asked if there was anyone present to speak on the Development Code as this was a Continued Public Hearing. Mr. Paul Scala, 6405 Le Blanc, Rancho Palos Verdes. Referring to Section 17.96.1980, Mr. Scala discussed bathrooms being considered as a viewing area. He mentioned that he was a new member of the View Restoration Commission and that he could not conceive of anyone claiming that someone's bathroom could be their primary viewing area and felt this is a obstacle to the View Restoration process and to the Development Code as well. Ms. Lois Large, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue stated that her very best view was from her bathroom and, therefore, did not agree with the previous speaker. After a lengthy discussion, which included the fact that people are spending more time in their bathrooms and that newer homes tend to have larger and more luxurious bathrooms, many with jacuzzis and often a view, a straw vote was taken, to determine if the Planning Commissioners wished to maintain the current language to include the bathroom as a viewing area. The results of the straw vote were as follows: Hayes No Ferraro No Wang Yes Whiteneck No Vice Chairman Mowlds Abstain Chairman Alberio Yes Therefore, the language designating the bathroom as a viewing area would be removed. Commissioner Hayes moved to continue the Public Hearing to September 27, 199, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. Approved (6- 0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 9 B. SIGN PERMIT NO. 665; Porto Verde Apartments, 6600 Beachview Drive. (FF) Commissioner Whiteneck left the dais and Mr. Chairman Alberio noted that Mr. Whiteneck had recused himself from hearing this item, since his residence is within close proximity to the subject property. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report. This item was continued from the May 24, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the Commission denied the proposed sign and suggested that the applicant work with Staff in developing an alternative sign. Since that time the applicant has met with Staff and Staff reiterated the Planning Commission's position that the sign should be designed as a tract entrance sign which the Commission felt would be more aesthetically pleasing. The redesigned sign is essentially the same sign presented on May 24, 1994 and, therefore, Staff has recommended denial of the Sign Permit. Chairman Alberio asked how the new sign was different and Assistant Planner de Freitas said that the sign was smaller than it was before but it was still very prominent. Chairman Alberio asked if it was in conformance with the City Council policy. Planning Administrator Petru replied that it was not because it was still an offsite sign. Assistant Planner de Freitas added that it did not resemble a tract identification sign which was the direction from the Planning Commission. Planning Administrator Petru mentioned that; even though this was not a Public Hearing, there may be speakers. Ms. Pam Dunham, 6600 Beachview Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Dunham stated that she was the manager of the Apartments and that the sign was not changed substantially because the owner, Mr. Frank Sciarrotta, was not in favor of the monumental, more pleasing, sign on the corner because he did not want a permanent sign and because he does not own the property. She explained that they had modified the previous sign to say merely "Porto Verde Apartments" with an arrow, purely a directional sign, with less information than before. She wondered why they would not be allowed to have a sign such as this when Golden Cove Shopping Center and Palos Verdes Tennis Club do. Planning Administrator Petru replied that certain uses in the City, Los Verdes Golf Course, major shopping centers, the Wayfarer's Chapel, major landmarks, schools, etc, have requested signs in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 10 public right of way and the Public Works Departments considered these requests, on a case-by-case basis, and, occasionally, had granted permission for these standard brown and white City directional signs. She added that, for instance, Golden Cove was one of the commercial centers in the City and that this sign did not identify one particular retail business. Ms. Dunham said she still did not understand, and asked if the fact that the property she managed was residential, rather than commercial, was a factor. Planning Administrator Petru replied that these directional signs were used for religious, educational, major commercial centers, as well as for the civic center and recreational areas. Commissioner Hayes informed Ms. Dunham that she had driven by the apartments on Palos Verdes Drive South, from both directions, and that she was able to glance toward Beachview (while driving) and was able to clearly see the sign on the front of the building. Ms. Dunham replied that she had told repeatedly by prospective tenants that the apartments were very difficult to find and that they had driven right by, even when given very specific instructions, and that she felt she was losing 250 of her traffic. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue discussed the recession and that the fact that the city should encourage business. She protested the "Adopt -a -Highway" signs on the basis that she felt they are paid advertising. Also mentioned that there was a "For Sale" sign on Palos Verdes Drive South for a house in her neighborhood and she felt this should not be allowed either. She felt sympathy for the manager of the apartments and stated that these were beautiful units right on the ocean that were not being rented. It was her opinion that the manager should be allowed to put an attractive professional sign on Palos Verdes Drive South to replace the handmade sign presently there. Chairman Alberio asked if their current sign was in compliance and Planning Administrator Petru said that the hand -painted sign was an illegal sign. Director Bernard added that this item originated as a Code Enforcement case. The City Council recent policy statement against offsite signs was discussed and Commissioner Hayes indicated that an alternative would be a sign stating the street name of Beachview, with an arrow indicating the direction of the street, and that the sign would have to look like other street signs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 11 Planning Administrator Petru replied that this option could be explored with the Public Works Department. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that a sign could be placed on the corner of Sea Wolf and Palos Verdes Drive South if the land were owned, or leased, by the owner of the apartment complex. At the request of Chairman Alberio Ms. Dunham returned to the podium and said they had leased the land but that it was only available for temporary signage, nothing permanent. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that they invest in a sign that looked permanent even though you know it was actually temporary, possibly made of wood framing and stucco to resemble concrete. Ms. Dunham said she favored the alternative of a sign directing perspective tenants to Beachview Street, feeling that such a sign would be quite helpful. Director Bernard too believed that this would be the best option and that Staff would consult with Public Works and bring back an answer. Chairman Alberio agreed with Director Bernard but requested the City Attorney's opinion regarding an offsite sign on the leased corner. Chairman Alberio asked Staff if the direction was clear and Planning Administrator Petru said yes, but asked if this item was to be continued to a date certain or tabled and re -scheduled. Chairman Alberio suggested that it be tabled until a solution was found. Commissioner Whiteneck returned to the dais. C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23912, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ° NO. 661, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1727, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1743; Mr. and Mrs. Ducharme, 6324 Via Colinita. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. This item was continued from June 14, 1994 and Staff had worked with the applicant to analyze various alternatives for conceptual building footprints and driveway access. Commissioner Wang asked about the decision of the Palos Verdes Art Jury. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that the Minutes were being passed around but that the Art Jury was concerned about the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 12 0 steepness and the design of the driveway access. Planning Administrator Petru announced that the Public Hearing was still open. Mr. Jim Marquez, 1860 S. Elena, Suite A, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. Mr. Marquez said he was present on behalf of the property owner, Fishery Products, International. He explained what they were asked to do by the Planning Commission after the last hearing and how they had worked with Staff since that time to identify opportunities to create the highest and best use of the land. He described some of the problems in trying to accomplish this. The 131 elevation at the property line above the street grade would cause a great deal of grading in order to provide access to the property. Mr. Marquez explained that they looked at neighborhood driveways for ideas for handling access and described some of their early attempts to provide access for the two proposed lots. If the property remained as one lot, the grading estimate would be 1800 cubic yards. Staff proposed building the garage facing street directly and the Art Jury agreed and, although this is a preferable architectural schematic, the necessary grading would be 1500 to 1900 cubic yards per site for a total of approximately 3400 cubic yards for both lots. The most recent plan (provided at meeting without prior review by staff or Planning Commission) provides a detached three -car garage with a 20" driveway access from Via Colinita for both lots, with 900 cubic yards of earth removal for both properties. This would provide two 3000 square feet two-story homes, set 201 back from street. They took into consideration the Commission's concerns as well as neighborhood compatibility and want to prove that a home can be built on each lot. Mr. Marquez was looking to the Planning Commission for additional direction and explained that they would be willing to work with the Planning Commission and the Art Jury, not just for a decision, but for a decision that provides the best use for the land for the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Mowlds confirmed that the drawings provided in the Commissioners' agenda packet were not the one Mr. Marquez was currently proposing. Mr. Marquez said that the new plan (not in the packet) was the best architecturally but the Art Jury does not like its access. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the Art Jury's idea was to dig the garage into the hillside. Mr. Marquez said yes and explained that the difficulty with that plan is that even more grading was necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 13 Several Commissioners felt that none of the plans being presented were appropriate. Chairman Alberio explained that he did not want the Planning Commission to continue to give you direction and imply that approval would be guaranteed. He stressed that these lots had to be buildable and there seemed to be great obstacles. chairman Alberio asked Mr. Marquez if he understood that the project would have to be approved by the Art Jury as well as the Planning Commission and Mr. Marquez said that he did. Chairman Alberio made motion to deny the application, seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved by roll call (6-0). Chairman Alberio mentioned that there was a 15 -day appeal period before the Commission's action became final. D. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 794 - APPEAL; Mr. and Mrs. Peter Wu, 30824 Cartier Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. This item was continued from June 14, 1994 and Staff has worked with the applicant and his architect, as well as meeting with the neighbors at City Hall. The bulky and massive appearance of the second story has been reduced and Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Mrs. Yenita Wu, 30824 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Wu said that in December 24, 1993, she and her husband submitted an application to add the second story and the plan was denied because house was too bulky. After the public hearing on July 26, 1994 they followed the Planning Commission's direction to revise the design and also met with their neighbors, one of whom said their view would be blocked and their privacy invaded. The City Staff have said no views would be blocked by this addition, however, Mrs. Wu said they would be willing to cut a row of big trees in our back yard. The height was reduced and the roof changed from gabled to hip. She felt that the new plan was compatible with the neighborhood and mentioned that the Architectural Committee of their Homeowners Association had approved the project in early July, 1994. Mrs. Wu noted that the invasion of privacy complaint came from a neighbor 1001 above her house. She said that family needed the bedroom and bathroom windows on the side of their house facing that particular neighbor for ventilation and that the sunlight would help conserve energy. Architect Terence Kwok was also present for questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 14 Dr. Judy Davis, 30437 Rhone Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. Davis made two corrections, On Page 3, in the second paragraph, of the memo to the Planning Commission from the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, her address was incorrectly given as 30431 Rhone Drive. Also, a correction was needed in her letter to the Planning Commission. On Page 1, in the first paragraph, the 11th line at end of sentence should read "a hip roof" and the beginning of the next line should read "a gabled roof". Dr. Davis informed the Commission that her letter was written before she reviewed the new plans submitted by Mr. Wu. She had the following comments regarding the Staff Report. (1) Mr. Wu had worked in good faith with Staff, had taken into consideration the neighbors' concerns and she hoped that this would continue (2) She and husband believed the hip roof was a more acceptable design, however, they would like reassurance from Mr. Wu and his architect that the hip roof at the highest point was indeed at its lowest accessible height to meet Code requirements and any further lowering of the rood at its highest point would not meet Code. (2) The Staff Report stated that the plan, as redesigned, would not block the protected ocean view, with emphasis on protected, but Dr. Davis said that the view was still somewhat impacted (3) She appreciated that fact that Mr. and Mrs. Wu were willing to remove the trees from the rear of their property. She and her husband would have complained about the trees blocking their view but they had not known who owned the property. She noted that removal of this foliage did intensify concern about privacy, however, because the rear facing window from the Wuls proposed house would look directly onto their property and wondered if the second floor windows might possibly be installed with opaque glass. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein informed Dr. Davis that when Staff met with the architect, he indicated that the proposed roof had the minimum pitch to have the floor space meet building code. Chairman Alberio asked about the privacy issue Dr. Davis said that the rear of her house was completely glass and that the architecture of the house did not allow for curtains. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if she would consider opaquing her windows. Dr. Davis said that their windows were already tinted gray and opaquing the windows on that side would eliminate their view. Vice Chairman Mowlds was concerned that if the Wu family was asked to opaque the windows on several sides of their house, they might only have clear windows from the front of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 15 N Discussion between commissioner Hayes, Vice Chairman Mowlds, and Chairman Alberio revealed that the Davis home was located higher than the Wu home but that the proposed second floor windows in the Wu addition would be at the level of the Davis home, and that their yard abut each other. Commissioner Hayes mentioned that her own house had gray tinted windows and her experience had been that people could not see inside her home from the outside. Dr. Davis said that she had looked into her house and it was possible to see inside. Commissioner Ferraro asked Dr. Davis if the hip roof was acceptable. Dr. Davis said that it was more acceptable than the gabled roof. She added that, currently, foliage was hiding the roof but, with the foliage removed, the hip roof would be visible and would be more appealing than the gabled roof. Chairman Alberio agreed that, if the Wu trees were cut, the Wu house would be more visible to the Davis family. Dr. Davis said that was correct. Therefore, even though she appreciated their cutting the trees, this would intensify the privacy concerns. Commissioner Wang asked if Dr. Davis wanted the trees cut down. Dr. Davis said the trees would improve her view. She clarified that the trees do not currently hide the Wu home because they are on either side of the Wu structure, however, if foliage were grown between the trees, it would screen the Wu home from her house and would make the Wuls view more pleasant as well. Chairman Alberio stressed that the rights of both parties had to be taken into consideration. Mr. Suphal Agrawal, 30431 Rhone Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Agrawal explained that his home was directly upslope from the subject property and expressed his appreciation of Mr. and Mrs. Wuls position and their willingness to cooperate. He was hopeful for a compromise and stated that he had accepted the hip roof. In regard to the Wuls trees, he also said that he would have complained about them but did not know the owner of the property and appreciated Mr. Wuls offer to remove the trees, which would improve his view. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 16 There was a discussion between Chairman Alberio and Mr. Agrawal regarding lacing or trimming the trees as an alternative and Mr. Agrawal said that he felt they should be completely cut down. He added that Mr. and Mrs. Wu had agreed to remove the trees to improve their neighbors' views and that, in turn, be allowed to change their plans to incorporate the hip roof, would encroach slightly into Mr. Agrawal's view but Mr. Agrawal was willing to compromise to have the trees removed. Mrs. Yenita Wu came to the podium for a rebuttal. She said that their intent was to remove the trees permanently, not just trim them. She asked if the City would allow the removal of the trees and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said this removal would be permitted and would be made a condition of approval before a building permit would be issued. Commissioner Hayes asked Mrs. Wu if she would you be willing to work with the Davises to put up screening landscaping between their two yards and Mrs. Wu said yes. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds sympathized with the Davises because the rear of their house facing the Wu property was all glass and realizes that they would not want opaque glass. He agreed that foliage for screening purposes between the two homes was a good idea but Staff would have to work out the details to make sure the height of the foliage conformed to City regulations and make this foliage a condition of approval. Vice chairman Mowlds also discussed Condition 4 of Exhibit "All which said that the height should not exceed 23,1611 as measured from the highest point. He suggested that, to avoid the problem encountered with the house on Bendigo, a specific elevation should be indicated in the condition. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that the Condition would require ridge height certification. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested also that Condition 6, include the following statement: "The completed project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as received by the Planning Department on August 30, 1994 and the roof configuration shall be as shown", so that the roof could move an inch here and there but wouldn't get any bigger and would stay hipped. Vice Chairman Mowlds discussed the Condition to be added addressing the foliage to be planted for screening purposes. I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 17 Planning Administrator Petru suggested that, rather than modifying Condition 1, the requirement for landscape covenant should be left as written for protection if any of the foliage grew too high in the future. She further suggested that two separate conditions be added, one to address the removal of certain trees in the rear yard (specifying the quantity and type of trees) and another to address installation of low shrubs on the rear slope to improve privacy situation on the north elevation, near or at the rear property line. Commissioner Hayes moved to adopt the Resolution, Approving the Height Variation as redesigned, subject to the conditions which have been amended, second by commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). Chairman Alberio asked the parties involved if they understood the action taken and they said yes. Chairman Alberio suggested to Mrs. Wu that she meet immediately in the hallway with Assistant Planner Klopfenstein to discuss the details. Chairman Alberio mentioned that there was a 15 -day appeal period before the Commission's action became final. E. VARIANCE NO. 377 AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 25• Mr. William Dytrt, 6420 Sattes Drive. (FF) Chairman Alberio noted that Staff's recommendation was to continue this item because the fees required for a Variance request had not been paid. The Recording Secretary informed the Commission that there was a speaker who wished to address this item. Mr. Paul Scala, 6405 Le Blanc, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Scala indicated that this was the third meeting he had attended on this item, one City Council meeting and two Planning Commission meetings. He expressed his confusion was to how this Variance had appeared on the agenda when fees had not been paid. Mr. Scala had understood that Mr. Dytrt had been given an extension to tonight's meeting so that he would have an opportunity to submit the fees. Mr. Scala explained that his view was being blocked by Mr. Dytrt's 10-121 hedges and that the City ordinance stated hedges may not be over 61 tall. He reported that ten months ago he asked that this ordinance be enforced and asked Staff why this Variance request process was begun without paid fees and if Mr. Dytrt was planning to pay these fees. Planning Administrator Petru replied that she had spoken to Mr. Dytrt prior to the preparation of this item for agenda and he said he was waiting for a response to a letter he had sent to Mayor Kuykendall deciding what he wanted to do. His two choices were to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 18 go forward with the Variance and pay the fees or withdraw the application and allow Code Enforcement activity to continue. In deference to that conversation, Staff had recommended an extension to October 11, 1994. Director Bernard added that, although he was out of town during this time, Staff did, in his absence, prepare a response to Mr. Dytrt's letter to Mr. Kuykendall but Mr. Dytrt had requested that those same points be made to him in a letter directly from the Mayor. Chairman Alberio asked if there had been a response from the Mayor and Planning Administrator Petru said she did not think so. Mr. Scala said that he had received a letter from the Mayor, asking that Mr. Scala resign from the View Restoration Commission because he had asked for bushes to be cut to conform to the Code. Director Bernard responded this was not the reason the Mayor had requested Mr. Scala's resignation. He explained that it was because of Code Enforcement on Mr. Scala's own property. The Mayor cited the Council's policy that a member of a committee or a commission should not remain in that position when there was pending litigation with the City. Mr. Scala said that he had brought some photographs to the first meeting he attended on this item but the City Council refused to look at them. He had then showed them to Planning Staff and they said they would present them to the Planning Commission at this meeting but that he still had not been allowed to present the photographs showing that his view was being destroyed by Mr. Dytrt's bushes. He said that other neighbors were affected by Mr. Dytrt's bushes and asked what other complaints had been submitted. Director Bernard replied that the only complaint received to date was from Mr. Scala. Mr. Scala asked if Staff had visited the neighborhood and interviewed other residents and Director Bernard said that was true but no other complaints were submitted and that the other neighbors had not complained about lost views. Mr. Scala commented that they had complained to him. Chairman Alberio asked why the Variance was before the Planning Commission when the required fees had not been paid. Planning Administrator Petru replied that sometimes citizens submitted applications with a fee waiver request and, generally, the fee waiver request is processed first to determine the City PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 19 E • Council's decision. In this particular case, Staff did issue the Public Notice on this hearing before the decision of the City Council action and we probably should have waited before we scheduled this item, at least she was assuming this was what had happened. Assistant Planner de Freitas confirmed that Ms. Petru Is explanation was correct. Council's action was to deny the request just a week before the Planning commission's initial hearing on this item on August 9, 1994. Mr. Scala asked if the item was to be extended to the next meeting and Planning Administrator Petru said that was Staff's recommendation. Chairman Alberio said that action had to be taken to bring both properties into compliance with Code. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that if Mr. Dytrt refused to pay the required fees, the Planning Commission could direct Staff to administratively withdraw his application and to remand the issue to Code Enforcement. Chairman Alberio moved to direct Staff to withdraw the application and refer this to Code Enforcement, seconded by commissioner Hayes. Approved (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS (continued from earlier in the evening) A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS) ; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Director Bernard asked Senior Planner Rojas to return for continued discussion of the Development Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that, at the last City Council meeting when Development code items were discussed, including holding tanks, second story additions, and a 200 square footage threshold for Planning Commission review, his opinion was that the City Council did not feel that there was an accurate representation of the Planning Commission's reasons behind their recommendations. Vice Chairman Mowlds continued with examples: (1) After hearing the City Attorney's comments on holding tanks, the Planning Commission stated that any new addition with a water fixture would need a holding tank for the whole facility but there was still the possibility of establishing a threshold where, at a certain square footage, a holding tank would be required. A threshold had been discussed, possibly at 650 square feet. It seemed to Mr. Mowlds PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 20 L- T " -c 0 0 that the Planning Commission should simply make a direct proposal that one of these choices be made. (2) As far as the threshold of new residential square footage for Planning Commission review, Vice Chairman Mowlds felt the proposal of 250 square feet was inappropriate and it that it should be approximately 2,000 square feet. (3) Mr. Mowlds stated that the City Council has had opinions about additions over garages at the front of a house and that the Planning Commission should recommend that, if the new addition covered more than a certain percentage (maybe 600), the addition should come before the Planning commission. Also, possibly if that second floor garage addition covered more than a certain percentage of the original footprint (maybe 60%), the item should come before the Planning Commission. He stated that these percentages could be adjusted but he felt some guidelines needed to be set. Commissioner Hayes said that the suggestion for the 250 square feet had come from her. Vice Chairman Mowlds disagreed and said she had inherited the idea from someone else in the past and another idea which came with it was the inappropriate concept of 601 front setbacks. Director Bernard said that Vice Chairman Mowlds had addressed a number of subjects and that there was one item that was not in the latest Staff Report to the City Council, the issue regarding holding tanks, which is discussed in Title 15. The City Council asked Staff to investigate that issue and the Planning Commission, by the Municipal Code, was not responsible for enforcing or reviewing Title 15, and, therefore, were not consulted on this particular subject. Chairman Alberio said that it would be the City Council's decision if they wished the Planning commission to review that issue. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that, after his discussion with Mayor Pro Tem Byrd, a new phrase, "transfer tank", be used by the City Council to describe the situation in which sewage came into a tank and was ejected into the sewer system. The Planning Commission could use the phrase "holding tank" for the 1000, 1500, 2000 gallon tanks for a home. Mr. Mowlds felt that there was confusion because of the words "holding tank" were being used for both situation. Director Bernard suggested that Senior Planner Rojas review with the Planning Commission the remainder of the report regarding the four issues that were presented at the City Council meeting on September 6, 1994. Mr. Bernard stated that Staff had worked very hard to give an accurate representation of the Planning Commission's recommendations, including reading prior Minutes of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 21 the Commission's earlier deliberations. Commissioner Hayes expressed her opinion that 2000 square feet was too high with regard to establishing a threshold for Planning Commission review of new residential additions. Chairman Alberio said that the City Council should make that decision. Senior Planner Rojas said that he would like to go through the questions posed to the City Council, the direction that was given, and what changes Staff intended to make to the draft language based on that direction. Mr. Rojas said that, on the subject of Height Variations, the City Council was presented with the revisions submitted by the Planning Commission and was told that the Commission was asking for more direction on whether perhaps all Height Variations should go to the Commission for review or perhaps all over a certain threshold. The Council said that they preferred that the existing review system be kept in place. Therefore, he said Staff was going to remove those sections that the Commission had inserted into the Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that he or Chairman Alberio should have been at the City Council meeting for a proper presentation and noted that the item was addressed very late in the evening and that many of the City Council members had not served on the Planning Commission. Director Bernard mentioned that he was not present at the meeting but, as the Vice Chairman was aware, the Planning Department Staff does not arrange the Council agenda and it is the Council's decision if they feel if they want to continue an item because of the lateness of the house. He added that chairman Alberio was at the meeting for a portion of the evening and probably had to leave at some point and noted that Staff could not make the Commission attend the City Council meeting to plead the case. Chairman Alberio commented that he had attended the City Council meeting for the Ocean Trails and Graylog items. Chairman Alberio said that he felt there was confusion because some of the members of the City Council don't fully understand the issue and it was late in the evening and that it had nothing to do with Staff's presentation. Director Bernard said that a copy of the Staff Report could be provided to the Commission, as well as copies of the pertinent minutes and suggested that members of the Planning Commission could help Staff draft a better representation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 22 Vice Chairman Mowlds said that he had a copy. Vice Chairman Mowlds discussed pop-up garages and indicated that none had been approved since he had been on the commission and he felt that something is wrong with the review process if these continue to go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mowlds noted that the Council had approved the Minor Exception Permit process, which meant that, if a house had been before the Planning Commission or the City Council, the envelope could no longer be changed. Senior Planner Rojas agreed that the City Council had added language stating that such an Minor Exception Permit request would go to the Planning Commission or whichever body approved it initially. Chairman Alberio stated that, in all fairness to the Staff, fe felt that a citizen had a right to appeal any Staff decision to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio discussed the cost of an appeal, how it had increased over the years, and the right of the public to request an appeal. Senior Planner Rojas continued with the Height Variation discussion. He stated that Staff's intention was to follow the Council's direction but that the concern of the Commission over changing the language was understood. Mr. Rojas suggested that, as proposed earlier, direction could be noted in the Staff Report to the City Council of the consensus of the Commission regarding any revisions, and that the Commission felt their recommendations were not represented accurately. As Vice Chairman Mowlds noted, the issue could be taken up by the Council at that time. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the City Council had many other items to address and he doubted that they would be able to review the entire Development Code in great detail. Chairman Alberio agreed that the City Council was relying on the Planning Commission for recommendations. Commissioner Hayes noted that what Planning Commission really wanted was a design review committee. Director Bernard said that Staff understood that and that it had been proposed to the City Council on at least four occasions. He explained that the Planning Commission was empowered to make recommendations to the City Council on the Development Code and, although the Council was given some opportunity to provide early direction on these four issues, the Planning Commission still had PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 23 the opportunity to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the Code. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed and repeated that he did not feel, as a Planning Commissioner, that the Planning Commission's recommendations were presented accurately to the City Council. Director Bernard suggested that, as discussed previously, a cover memorandum be provided with the Planning Commission's draft document, highlighting certain sections which have been discussed in great detail that the Council may want to focus on. Director Bernard stated that the rest of the definitions would be brought back on October 11, 1994. Commissioner Hayes moved that the November 22, 1994 meeting, which is two days before Thanksgiving be cancelled, seconded by Chairman Alberio seconded. Approved (6-0). Director Bernard said that it was helpful to know this well in advance so that items could be scheduled accordingly. NEW BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the September 27, 1994 meeting. B. COMMISSION - None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - None ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 11:14 PM to regular meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. (A JD MINUTES DISK #5 - MIN9 13) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 24