Loading...
PC MINS 19941213MINUTES ORIGINALLY APPROVED ' 1/10/95 ,� REVISED MINUTES APPROVED 4/11/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES A PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING iL Q (c ee u December 13, 1994 C- op n "L.' The meeting was called to order at 7:04 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, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Commission Secretary Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planners Silverman and Jerex, Assistant Planners de Freitas and Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary Drasco. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Director/Secretary Bernard noted the following: 1. An article from the American Journal of Planning was forwarded to each Commissioner in the agenda packet. 2. A written schedule was provided to the Commission indicating 1995 Planning Commission regular meeting dates. 3. A memo from Senior Planner Rojas was provided to the Commission with a General Plan consistency analysis attached in reference to the Development Code Revisions (CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM VIB). 4. A request was submitted by another Department's Staff member from the City's Public Works Department to hear the Street Vacation Request (PUBLIC HEARING ITEM VIIC) immediately after the CONSENT CALENDAR items as he was required to attend another City meeting that evening as well. B. COMMISSION The Commission agreed to hear Item VIIC immediately after the CONSENT CALENDAR items. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 1994. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that, on Page 1 in the last paragraph, the word "approved" should be "approve". Commissioner Hayes said that, on Page 7 in the fourth paragraph, the word "tenure" should be inserted in the sentence to read; "... during his tenure as a Planning Commissioner...". Vice Chairman Mowlds asked that, on Page 7 in the second paragraph on the third and ninth lines, the words "Planning Commission" be changed to "Homeowners Association". Commissioner Wang requested that, on Page 15 in the ninth paragraph on the third line, the word "which" be inserted to read "...post World War II homes which would be..."" Commissioner Ferraro said that, on Page 20 in the sixth paragraph on the second line, the sentence should be changed from "and the rejected" to "and they rejected" and asked for clarification, on Page 21 in the third paragraph, of the phrase "because it would be easier to trip". Planning Administrator Petru suggested that the phrase be changed to "because it would be easier to trigger the review process". Commissioner Ferraro moved to.approve the Minutes of November 9, 1994, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). B. Planning Commission Minutes of November 22, 1994. Commissioner Ferraro indicated that, on Page 3 second paragraph from the bottom, the statement regarding the use of the words "effected" and affected" was not made by her. Chairman Alberio asked that his name be inserted in place of Mrs. Ferraro's. Commissioner Ferraro also pointed out the ambiguity, on Page & in the second paragraph from the bottom, regarding the abstentions. Staff indicated that the paragraph would be changed to read "... Whiteneck and Vannorsdall abstaining, since Mr. Whiteneck lives near the project and Mr. Vannorsdall had not been present at the previous hearings on the item." Commissioner Vannorsdall moved t seconded by Commissioner Wang. Chairman Mowlds and Commissioner present at the November 22, 1994 > accept the Minutes, as amended, Approved, (5-0-2), with Vice - Hayes abstaining as they were not meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 2 • PUBLIC HEARINGS 0 C. STREET VACATION• Seacliff Hills Homeowners Association, Tract Nos. 32574 and 34834. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report. Chairman Alberio asked if vacating the street automatically created a gated community. Planning Administrator Petru explained that this proposal was simply to vacate the public streets. There would have to be a subsequent application (a Conditional Use Permit Revision) and another Public Hearing, before the Planning Commission, to consider whether or not gates may be installed. Chairman Alberio expressed his concern about too many gated communities in the city causing isolation, even though he understood that often the gates were requested for safety reasons. Vice Chairman Mowlds questioned the Staff Report's statement that the City Council was in favor of this Street Vacation and said he believed that this was not true. Director/ Secretary Bernard indicated that it was possible that the Staff Report did not explain the situation clearly. Pursuant to established City procedure, the proposal had first been presented to the Traffic Committee and then reviewed by the City Council to determine if it had enough merit to be further considered. Staff did not mean to imply that the City Council had given approval of the Street Vacation. The Council had simply allowed the applicant to continue with the process. Chairman Alberio asked how the City would benefit from this Street Vacation. Dean Allison, Public Works Department. Mr. Allison said there would be no particular benefit to the City, only to \ the Seacliff Hills community. Director/Secretary Bernard speculated that there might be two possible benefits to the City: (1) some savings to the City because the homeowners would assume responsibility for maintenance of the street; and, (2) an elimination of liability because the City would no longer be responsible for accidents or unsafe conditions on the street. Mr. Kevin Sears, President of the Seacliff Homeowners Association, 3324 Palo Vista Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Sears pointed out that the purpose of the Street Vacation was to provide improved PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 3 security for the members of the Homeowners Association. He indicated that he had appeared before the Planning Commission one time in the past, twice before the City Council, and before the Traffic Committee on this matter. He clarified that, since there were no curbs in the neighborhood, the City did not perform street sweeping so there would be no savings for street sweeping. Chairman Alberio asked if the majority of the residents in the tract were in support of this proposal and if the by-laws of the Homeowners Association were being followed. Mr. Sears said that they had received approval from 94% of the Association members, with only two landowners not indicating their preference. One of these landowners owned a vacant lot in the tract, while the other owned a vacant house. He said that they were adhering to the adopted by-laws. Commissioner Wang asked Mr. Sears about the future street maintenance costs to the Homeowners Association. Mr. Sears indicated that this information had been provided to the City Council but that he did not have it with him. He estimated it was about $10,000 to $12,000 for re -slurrying the streets every five to seven years. Chairman Alberio asked about fire and police protection. Director/Secretary Bernard explained that the area would still be serviced by the County Sheriff and Fire Departments, and other City services. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue expressed her opposition to the privatization of communities within the City and said that she found it hard to believe that the General Plan allowed for gated communities. Director/Secretary Bernard clarified that Staff was not making a recommendation on whether or not to gate the community and that the issue before the Commission was whether or not the Street Vacation request was consistent with the General Plan. He responded to Ms. Laruefs statement regarding consistency with the General Plan by referring to General Plan Policy 21, Page 137, which specifically established the criteria for evaluating Street Vacation requests - which this request met. Vice Chairman Mowlds understood that installation of gates would be a separate application but pointed out that, realistically, a request for gates always followed a Street Vacation because the Association then owned the streets and therefore felt that they had a right to gate them. He confirmed his understanding that Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 4 was not taking a position on whether or not gates should be allowed. Chairman Alberio was concerned about the City relinquishing land without compensation. Planning Administrator Petru pointed out that the City merely owns an easement and that the underlying property is actually owned by the adjacent property owners (to the center of the street) or the Homeowners Association, depending on how the tract was recorded. Commissioner Hayes moved to close the Public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Hayes related a personal story regarding her own community. She explained that the area was very accessible and recently she was startled by a man going through the trash in her condominium complex's dumpsters. She also described a "drug bust" at their swimming pool. Commissioner Hayes said that she had tried to interest members of her Homeowners Association in gating the community but was unsuccessful. Therefore, she indicated that she would support this Street Vacation if it was intended for safety in the community. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that Commissioner Wang had pointed out to him that the Planning Commission's job in this instance was merely to determine whether the Street Vacation Request was consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Ferraro felt that, even though she was not in favor of many gated communities, it was a sign of the times and she acknowledged that the vacation of the streets was the first step in the procedure. Vice Chairman ,Mowlds believed that the General Plan did not encourage gated enclaves. To the contrary, he felt that it encouraged openness and access to views. He acknowledged that there might be a crime problem, but questioned whether the proliferation of gated communities was good for the City as a whole. Chairman Alberio concurred with Vice chairman Mowlds's statements. Commissioner Hayes agreed that Street Vacation usually led to a gated community, but she still was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Whiteneck explained that the community in which he lives was completely gated at one time, but had become partially open (on one side) and that crime had increased on the open side. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 5 Commissioner Ferraro moved to adopt the Staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion was approved (4-3) on the following roll call vote: YES: HAYES, FERRARO, WHITENECK, WANG NO: VANNORSDALL, MOWLDS, ALBERIO Chairman Alberio said that he would sign the Resolution indicating to the City Council that the Planning Commission found the proposal to be consistent with the General Plan. He asked Staff at which City Council meeting this item would be heard. Planning Administrator Petru said it would be January 17, 1995. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 124, VARIANCE NO. 378• Dr. and Mrs. Robert Hunt, 6470 Seacove Drive. (TS) Associate Planner Silverman explained that on October 25, 1995 after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission directed Staff to formulate a Resolution to bring back on November 9, 1995. On November 9, the Commission advised Staff that they wished to reconsider the Resolution and asked that it brought back on December 13, 1995, tonight's meeting. The Chairman noted that Commissioner Whiteneck would be abstaining because his home is near the subject property and that Commissioner Vannorsdall would be abstaining because he had been absent at the meetings during which this item was discussed. Commissioner Hayes indicated that because she had read all the Minutes and Staff Reports, she felt well informed and prepared to vote on the issue. Associate Planner Silverman clarified that the Resolution was merely being reconsidered. Chairman Alberio confirmed that he understood and said that only the Resolution was unders consideration. Associate Planner Silverman agreed and stated that, unless a new public hearing was rescheduled and noticed, the Planning Commission could only discuss the contents of the Resolution, including conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 6 Chairman Hayes moved to accept Staff recommendation, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. The motion passed (5-0-2), with Commissioners Whiteneck and Vannorsdall abstaining for the reasons mentioned previously. Chairman Alberio noted that there were two Resolutions to sign and that there would be 15 -day appeal. He asked if the applicants were present. Associate Planner Silverman replied that they were not present and that she had received call from the landowner's attorney saying they would not be attending. Ms. Silverman added that because City Hall would be closed during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day, the 15 -day appeal period would end on January 2, 1995. (It should be noted that the appeal period was later changed to Janaury 3, 199995, since City Hall was closed on Monday, January 2, 1995.) Chairman Alberio asked Associate Planner Silverman if she would please notify the applicant and she responded that she would. B. 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 commented that the Commission had received the 375 -page document on Friday to make a final decision on Tuesday and that he did not feel there had been enough time for review. Mr. Mowlds mentioned that he had spoken to the Mayor to determine the urgency of forwarding the Code recommendations to the City Council and the Mayor had indicated that it was more important that the Planning Commission felt comfortable with its recommendations. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that there were additional subjects which had occurred to him in the last few weeks which might be added or reviewed further. For instance, he thought further clarification was needed regarding the approval of caissons and grade beams. He believed that caissons should be applied for as a separate permit from a Grading Permit to avoid situations where the caissons were located incorrectly. Also, he noted that the Commission had not addressed the new 18 -inch satellite dishes. He felt that probably Staff had some additional ideas as well. Commissioner Vannorsdall concurred that the Commission had not been given sufficient time to review the final draft Code language. Chairman Alberio believed Mr. Mowlds' comments were well taken but reminded everyone that a Subcommittee, as well as the Planning Commission, spent a lot of time reviewing the Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 7 Vice Chairman Mowlds stressed that the Planning Commission and the Subcommittee had worked very diligently on this revision process and that Staff had done a wonderful job. However, there were subjects which simply weren't addressed or needed to be expanded. Geology Reports as part of Tract Map review was such a subject, and he believed that a mechanism was needed whereby, if geology reports were changed after approval of a Tract Map, then, if necessary, an amendment to the Tract Map would have to come before the Commission. Director/ Secretary Bernard said that he had spoken to Vice Chairman Mowlds in the last few days about his concerns and that Staff wanted to make sure the document forwarded to the City Council was one that the Commission was pleased with. However, Mr. Bernard emphasized the need for the project to go forward and not be tabled indefinitely, as it was in 1991. Chairman Alberio suggested that recommendations from individual Commissioners should be given to Staff in writing so that the process would move forward efficiently. Director/ Secretary Bernard requested that the Commissioners either mail or fax their written comments (he furnished the fax number of the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department) and to act as quickly as possible because Staff needed time to assemble the package to bring back in January 1995. Mr. Bernard stated that there were a number of revisions which Vice Chairman Mowlds was not able to present previously because unforeseen circumstances had prevented his attendance at the November 22, 1994 meeting. Instead, Mr. Mowlds' suggestions were given to Staff and could be discussed that evening. In addition, Director/Secretary Bernard noted that there were a number of other unresolved issues on which Staff was requesting Planning Commission direction that evening. Director/ Secretary Bernard asked Senior Planner Rojas to review the various issues outlined in the Staff Report with the Commission. Senior Planner Rojas noted that Vice Chairman Mowlds's suggested language revisions were listed on Page 2 of the Staff Report and asked if the changes were acceptable to the Commission. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed with the revised language in response to his suggestions with the exception of the Monument Marker language of Section 16.20.130(A). He believed that a more substantial material, like concrete, should be required for the placement of tract monuments. Chairman Alberio replied that his employer, the City of Los Angeles, used two types of materials to reinforce the placement of monument markers, depending on the permanency intended. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 8 Senior Planner Rojas asked whether the direction of the commission was that instead of the monument markers having increased depth, Staff look into providing a stronger, more reinforced monument, perhaps built with concrete. Chairman Mowlds agreed. Chairman Alberio also mentioned that the City of Los Angeles required a stiff penalty for vandalism of a monument marker, as well as a replacement cost. Senior Planner Rojas indicated that Staff would research the issue of appropriate monumentation, possibly contacting South Bay Engineering who had placed a considerable number of monument markers on the Peninsula. Mr. Ro)as asked if, with the exception of this comment, all of the other changes were acceptable. The consensus of the Commission was that the changes were acceptable. Senior Planner Rojas noted that a revision to Section 17.80.110 had been made by Staff regarding denial without prejudice and asked if the Commission would be willing to accept the language revisions to this Section as summarized on Page 3 of the Staff Report. Chairman Alberio asked if all the Commissioners understood the phrase "with or without prejudice". All the member of the Commission indicated that they understood and agreed with the change. Senior Planner Rojas sought approval of the minor changes made to Chapter 17.02. He pointed out that changes were made to the language and diagrams that explained the methods for measuring height in Section 17.02.040(A). He also pointed out two other minor changes to the Chapter; one at the recommendation of the City Attorney and View Restoration Commission; and one at the sole recommendation of the View Restoration Commission. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Staff to explain the View Restoration Commission's recommendations. Senior Planner Rojas answered that Section 17.02.040(A) (3) was divided into sub -sections at the request of the City Attorney and a sentence added, which was double underlined, to clarify the intent of the section. Mr. Rojas emphasized that these changes stemmed more from the City Attorney than the View Restoration Commission, although the View Restoration Commission had reviewed and conceptually approved the revision. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 9 Commissioner Hayes asked whether she was understanding the language of Section 17.02.040(A) (3) correctly in that a vacant lot could have a viewing area. Senior Planner Rojas explained that a view could be from a structure or, in the case of a vacant lot, from a portion of the vacant lot. Mr. Rojas pointed out that this language was in the existing Code. Senior Planner Rojas also stated that the View Restoration Commission suggested a minor change to a portion of Chapter 17.02 that was technically not within their purview. The View Restoration Commission felt that Section 17.02.040(B) (1) (e) (vi) would read better if, in the sentence beginning "unless viewing area in the existing structure....", the word "requires" was changed to "required". Staff agreed with the change and was seeking direction from the Planning commission. The Planning Commission agreed to the changes to Chapter 17.02. Vice Chairman Mowlds indicated that it was his understanding that the View Restoration commission was suggesting revisions to the Code that would allow 360 -degree views. Mr Mowlds indicated that he had discussed the subject with the three City Council members who were at the Joint City Council/View Restoration Commission Workshop, and that they had clearly stated their preference for a primary viewing area. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the issue discussed at the joint workshop was more about single or multiple view areas and not about 360 -degree views. she agreed that the three City Council members who were present preferred a single viewing area for each residence, which was embodied in the definition of "viewing area". The 360 -degree reference was part of the definition of "view" contained in the original language from Proposition M. Staff was concerned about a possible amendment to the definition of "view". since, under certain conditions, for example, a turret tower under 161 in height with glass all around, the Code would protect a 360 - degree view. She felt the discussion at the joint workshop was more about "viewing area" rather than the definition of "view". Director/Secretary Bernard discussed the fact that views from bathrooms would be protected as part of the Planning Commission's current recommendations. Planning Administrator Petru explained that this language revision was based on the outcome of the joint subcommittee workshop between the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Commission, but that the Planning Commission could change this language, if desired. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 14 Vice Chairman Mowlds remembered that the same three City Council members mentioned previously did not feel that a bathroom view should be protected. Chairman Alberio noted problems encountered with joint workshops because the two Council members who were not present at the meeting might be persuasive enough to change the minds of those Council members who were in attendance. Vice Chairman Mowlds believed that the Planning Commission should make its recommendation and, if it differed from that of the View Restoration Commission, the City Council could decide. Vice chairman Mowlds moved to exclude bathrooms from being considered as a protected viewing area, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (6-1), with Commissioner Wang dissenting. Senior Planner Rojas presented the question concerning Chapter 17.10 summarized on Page 4 of the Staff Report on whether second story or attached second units should be allowed. He noted that the Code drafted in 1991 prohibited both, and, instead, required a second unit to be detached from the main residence. Mr. Rojas mentioned that the City's affordable housing consultant suggested that allowing second story and attached second units would give the City more flexibility in meeting its State mandated affordable housing requirements. As a result, this Chapter was changed by Staff to allow a second unit on a second story or attached to the primary residence and Staff was now seeking the Commission's acceptance of this change. Director/ Secretary Bernard indicated that any proposed second unit would still have to meet all other zoning criteria in order to be approved by the City. Vice Chairman Mowlds believed the concept was good, but suggested a proviso that second story units that are attached to the primary residence share the same common door to the outside street, so that the structure didn't look like an apartment house. Senior Planner Rojas agreed to add this provision. Senior Planner Rojas brought up the subject of possible modifications to Section 17.48.050 (A) (2) regarding commercial roof equipment. Mr. Rojas indicated that the Commission had previously provided direction on this subject but that Staff was seeking a reconsideration of the language based on recent experience, particularly with businesses on Western Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 11 Because the Commissioners were missing the page which contained the actual language of this section, Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that Senior Planner Rojas discuss the general concept. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that the Planning Commission had previously requested language that required roof equipment exceeding the City's height limitation in Commercial Zoning Districts to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and that such language had been added to the Code. He added that since the Commission's recommendation, he had met with the City's Finance Advisory Committee and had begun to formulate the objectives of the pending Western Avenue Specific Plan, and as a result, one goal that Staff was working on was to simplify the City review of Western Avenue businesses which wish to make minor improvements to their buildings. Therefore, Mr. Rojas asked whether the Planning Commission would reconsider the review criteria for roof equipment. Chairman Alberio felt the Code should be left as revised. Senior Planner Rojas explained that the review criteria would remain the same but approval would be given by the Director instead of the Planning Commission. He felt that Director approval would save time for commercial applicants by avoiding having to wait for a hearing before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hayes believed the Planning Commission should see all such applications and did not believe significant time would be lost. Ms. Lois Large, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue asked for a definition of Municipal Code and asked how the public could make changes in the Code. Chairman Alberio replied that the Municipal Code governed a town, providing rules and regulations. He noted that, for the last year, there had been Public Hearings to provide an opportunity for the members of the public to express their opinions on proposed revisions to the Code and that the Planning Commission welcomed such input, although there had been little interest from the public. Ms. Larue asked how changes were made in the Code and Chairman Alberio explained the process in which a subject was presented, discussed, and voted upon. He noted that this was a democratic procedure. When Ms. Larue expressed skepticism, Vice Chairman Mowlds explained that, for the last three years, the Planning Commission had reviewed four notebooks like the one presented at tonight's meeting and that input from many people was included. He gave as an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 12 example the fact that Mr. Richard Bara was asked to provide information regarding Chapter 17.46, the Large Animal Overlay District (the Equestrian issue) , and reiterated that input from the public was welcomed. Ms. Larue expressed her opposition to golf courses on the south side of the peninsula. Director/ Secretary Bernard explained that Title II of the Municipal Code established certain responsibilities for Committees and Commissions. For example, the View Restoration Commission was concerned with views and the Planning Commission, by State and Federal law, was responsible for implementing the development standards of the City. However, the Planning Commission did not adopt the Development Code directly, but forwarded recommendations to the City Council for their review and eventual adoption. Commissioner Hayes moved to continue to Public Hearing to January 100 1995, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:35 P.M. and reconvened at 8:47 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 797 - APPEAL, VARIANCE NO. 374' Marcus, Ronald, and Billie Cahill, 2139 Summerland Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if Staff had talked to the applicant and his architect about redesigning the project to address Staff's concerns. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that Staff had discussed with the applicant and his architect relocation and reduction of the entrance tower, as well as setting back the second story wing over the garage. They were aware that if the Planning Commission denied the project they could appeal the decision to the City Council. Ms. Klopfenstein emphasized that there had been at least two meetings with the Director and the Planning Administrator to discuss a redesign of the project. However, the applicant felt that changing the design would compromise the overall architectural style of the project. Chairman Alberio asked Assistant Planner Klopfenstein if there was a encroachment problem in the rear yard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 13 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein indicated that she was not aware of a reduction of rear yard setback and noted that the applicant had applied for a Variance for a reduction in the front yard setback requirement. Chairman Alberio asked about the setback error at the neighboring house. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that, in 1990, the neighboring resident did not correctly identify the 121 City right- of-way on the plans and that the error was not discovered until the project was already under construction. Director/ Secretary Bernard pointed out that it was the applicant's responsibility to identify these measurements; but, since Staff did not "catch" the omission, it could be considered an "administrative error". He noted that the after -the -fact Variance was based on the error and should not be considered as a precedent for the neighborhood. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Glenn white, project architect, 1152 West Amar Street, San Pedro, CA 90732. Mr. White reported that when he was first designing the second story addition, he went on the Cahill's roof and noticed that, two doors down at 2123 Summerland, the house was closer to the street than the others and, at that time, he believed this indicated a valid setback. Mr. White described his experience in dealing with the Planning Department and said that he had been led to believe that his design to encroach into the front yard setback area could be processed through a Minor Exception Permit. He said that he completed the application and presented it to the City. Mr. White indicated that, at that time, another planner determined that a Variance was required, rather than a Minor Exception Permit, but he was also told that there would be no problem approving his request and that it was a clever solution. Mr. White provided a handout to the Commissioners for quick reference and mentioned that he had little time to prepare for the meeting since he had received a copy of the Staff Report only the day before. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. White to make sure Staff got a copy of the handout. Mr. White believed that he had been misguided by the Planning Department and said that he would have changed his design from the beginning had he known his plan would be denied. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. White if he had a copy of the City's Building and Development Code when he began the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 14 Mr. White replied that he did not. Vice Chairman Mowlds inquired how he knew what could be included in a Minor Exception Permit. Mr. White said that he did not know and had depended on the Planning Staff's guidance. Vice Chairman Mowlds wondered if Mr. White was aware of the difference between a Variance and a Height variation. Mr. white indicated that he was aware of the difference. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if Mr. White was familiar with how the City administered differently Variances and Height Variations. Mr. White responded that he was not. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked from where in the Cahill house the view was impaired. Mr. White replied that it was from the proposed second story. Vice Chairman Mowlds explained that views from second stories were not protected. He added that the primary view area was determined by standing or sitting with eyes no lower than 31611 or it could be determined by standing within 51 of the building. On the subject of articulation, Mr. Mowlds pointed out that he did not see any evidence of articulation in studying the silhouette and indicated that, even though there was an error in approving the addition at 2123 Summerland, that project did include facade articulation. Mr. White pointed out that there was articulation in his design in the form of clipped corners of the master suite above the garage. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the drawings the Planning commission had were the correct ones and added that he did not perceive articulation on the submitted drawings. Mr. White said that they were the correct drawings. Commissioner Hayes agreed that there was articulation at 2123 Summerland. In response to Mr. Cahillfs comment received from the audience, Director/Secretary Bernard stated, for the record, that the difference between the type of articulation at the Cahill's home and at 2123 Summerland had been fully explained by Staff at the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 15 aforementioned meetings; and that Staff would be recommending denial based upon the failure to provide same. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. White if this was the first time he had designed a pro]ect in the City. Mr. White said that he designed smaller additions, working with other architects. Chairman Alberio perceived that Mr. White was not fully knowledgeable about the Development Code for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and asked Mr. White if he had designed projects mostly in San Pedro and Los Angeles. Mr. White said that he had designed projects in many areas and even out-of-state. Chairman Alberio reminded Mr. White that it was the duty of an architect to familiarize himself with the Development Code in the area in which he was designing and that Mr. White had been hired as an expert to provide guidance to the Cahills. Mr. White agreed with Mr. Alberiols two statements regarding the responsibility of an architect and said that he had provided guidance to his client. Chairman Alberio wondered why he had recommended that the Cahills go forward with their design when Staff had indicated all along that it would not be acceptable. Mr. White disagreed and said that the City had led him to believe that the design would be acceptable and that Mr. Cahill could confirm that perception. Chairman Alberio asked for Staff's response to that statement. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein emphasized that the Planning Staff had met with the Cahills and Mr. White on a number of occasions, and (each time) had attempted to persuade them to redesign the project; but, that when they were denied approval from the Director, they made the decision to file an appeal to the Planning Commission to expedite the process. When Chairman Alberio surmised that the applicant and his representative were determined to build the house the way they wanted without compromise. Ms. Klopfenstein replied that it seemed that way to her and her fellow Staff members. Mr. White and Mr. Cahill disagreed that this was their attitude. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 16 E Commissioner Wang asked Mr. White if he and the applicant were willing to compromise. Mr. White responded that they were willing to reduce the square footage but that they wanted to maintain the overall architectural style. Chairman Alberio commented that the error at the nearby property, which resulted in an after -the -fact Variance approval of an addition which did not comply with the Code, did not mean that this project should be approved. He stressed that neighborhood compatibility was important, especially in the Eastview area. Mr. White agreed and said that they were willing to work toward compatibility. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein pointed out that a reduction of the square footage might not, on its own, solve the problem of the mass of the structure as it appeared from the street. She stated that Staff had repeatedly stressed setting back the second story from the garage, as it was at 2123 Summerland, and had also suggested relocating and/or reducing the entry tower to reduce the overall "appearance" of bulk of the facade. Director/Secretary Bernard indicated that the Staff Report reflected also Ms. Klopfenstein's comments and he read directly from the Conclusion section of the Report, which stated "Although the proposed project would be nearly twice the size of the other existing homes in the neighborhood, Staff feels that the proposed addition is not in the character with the neighborhood due primarily to the apparent bulk and mass of the structure over the garage, the two story entry tower, the lack of adequate building facade articulation, the incorporation of a metal (copper) roof and the reduced front yard setback." Mr. Marcus Cahill, applicant, 2139 Summerland Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Cahill said that he had received the Staff Report only the day before the meeting and indicated that when he spoke to Mr. Bernard about his addition, Ms. Carolynn Petru was present, but not Ms. Kim Klopfenstein. Director/Secretary Bernard disagreed and said, as the file indicates, that Assistant Planner Klopfenstein was present. Mr. Cahill stressed that Ms. Klopfenstein was not present at the very first meeting. Mr. Cahill further related the details of that meeting, pointing out that Mr. Bernard had said that he loved the design of the house and that he and his architect, Mr. White, had agreed to make the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 17 changes suggested by Staff. He restated Mr. White's comments that they had been led to believe, they were moving in the right direction and expressed his frustration in learning that this was not the case. He disagreed that the house at 2123 Summerland was attractive. He also asked if the Commission members were qualified to "read" the plans submitted for this project. Director/ Secretary Bernard clarified, for the record, that: (1) the "initial" discussion regarding the project was at the counter solely with Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas; (2) his (Director/ Secretary Bernard's) complete quote regarding the design of the house was that he did like the design, but felt that it did not meet criteria the Commission had established for articulation and neighborhood compatibility and that he could not, then or now, recommend approval; and, (3) Mr. White was advised in the previous meeting that the City had a history of attempting to work with applicants in trying to reach a compromise before bringing a project before the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Mowlds expressed sympathy to Mr. Cahill for the frustration and expense he had experienced. He restated Staff's comments that the size of the addition was not objectionable in itself, but that instead it was the appearance of bulk. Mr. Mowlds compared this addition with the one at 2123 Summerland, which he believed was well articulated. As a contractor, Mr. Mowlds indicated that he could look at the drawings and visualize the completed structure, and he did not see the proper articulation. Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Vice Chairman Mowlds and added that he believed the Planning Commission was well qualified to analyze the plans as four of the members were engineers, and others were professionally involved with other aspects of development. Ms. Billie Cahill, applicant, 1628 Laraine Circle, San Pedro, CA 90732. Ms. Cahill reported that she and her husband (Marcus' father) were the actual owners of the property and she was not happy with the progress of the project and hoped that a decision would be made soon. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue expressed her concern for the Cahills' dilemma and urged the Commission to approve their addition. Commissioner Hayes moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Hayes felt badly for the family as well, but did not feel that the proposed plan was acceptable for the reasons stated on a number of occasions by Staff and now by the other Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 18 Commissioner Vannorsdall was hopeful that a compromise could be reached to provide better overall articulation for the building. Commissioner Wang too was sorry for the applicant's time invested in the project and felt that Staff was sincerely trying to work with the Cahills and their architect toward a solution. Commissioner Whiteneck felt a solution could be found to everyone's satisfaction. Commissioner Ferraro proposed that Staff's Alternative No. 3 be chosen to resolve the identified issues. She believed that better articulation and a different roofing material other than copper would contribute to the compromise. Vice Chairman Mowlds commented on the time elapsed in the process for approval and said that Staff noted (in the Report) that the application was deemed complete on June 22, 1994, and that often applicants contributed to the lengthy process by failing to recognize that the first initial questions at the counter do not "start" the approval process; then failing to provide all the necessary paperwork in a timely manner also exacerbated the perception of delay. In this particular case, Staff advised the applicant that the project needed to be redesigned in order to obtain approval and the applicant decided to challenge that denial and appealed to the Planning commission. When this happened, the item had to be scheduled on a Planning Commission agenda which caused further delay. Mr. Mowlds mentioned that this agenda process was much faster than it was in the past, when projects often took at least seven months to be scheduled. Therefore, he felt a year was not an unreasonable amount of time to obtain approval, under the circumstances. Chairman Alberio hoped for better cooperation and communication between Staff and the.applicant and agreed that Staff's Alternative No. 3 seemed like the correct action. He hoped that a compromise could be reached and that the Cahill's would be able to build their addition, commenting that he believed strongly in a property owner's right to develop his land, but only when in compliance with the rules and established criteria. Commissioner Ferraro moved to continue the Public Hearing to February 14, 1995 in order to provide time for the applicant work with staff to resolve the issues of concern, mainly better articulation and a change in the roof material. Commissioner Hayes echoed her doubts about the copper roof and the fact that it would eventually turn green. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 19 Chairman Alberio mentioned the "pop-up" garage as an issue to be resolved. Commissioner Hayes seconded Commissioner Ferraro's motion. Mr. Cahill indicated that he would not be available on February 14, 1995. Planning Administrator Petru asked if February 28, 1995 would be acceptable and Mr. Cahill said that it would. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein listed the significant issues to be resolved as the articulation of the facade over the south wing, relocation and reduction of the entrance tower and the fireplace projection. Mr. Cahill asked if he could take down the silhouette poles and the consensus of the Commission was that he could, and then later replace them to illustrate the redesign. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. White, the applicant's architect to come forward and asked him if they were willing to work with Staff to obtain a compromise. Mr. White agreed, although he said that he believed he had already tried that. The motion was approved, (7-0). B. VARIANCE NO. 382• Mr. and Mrs. Ravetti, 2059 Jaybrook Drive. (DJ) Associate Planner Jerex presented the Staff Report Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Robert Ravetti, applicant, 2059 Jaybrook Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Ravetti informed the Commission that he agreed with the Staff recommendation and that he was available for questions. Commissioner Hayes moved to close the public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (7-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to accept Staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Alberio mentioned that there was a 15 -day appeal period before the Commission's action became final. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 20 NEW BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 - REVISION YY, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1769; Dr. H. Emanian, 32541 Seacliff Drive. (TS) Commissioner Hayes moved to waive reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved (7-0). Commissioner Hayes moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 823 - Revision YY, Grading Permit No. 1769, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. STAFF Director/Secretary Bernard noted that the pre -agenda for January 10, 1995, which was distributed in the Commissioners packet, included discussion of Chapter 17.46 of the Development Code Equestrian Zone and reminded the Commission that consideration for the remainder of the Development Code had to be rescheduled. Since the January 10, 1995 pre -agenda was issued, Staff had received a request for the Planning Commission to hear a Conditional Use Permit and concurrent applications for expansion of the existing Mobil station at Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard, to include, among other things, a convenience store. Commissioner Hayes mentioned that she had read in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News that the City Council in the City of Rolling Hills took action on an issue related to horses and asked if Staff could provide further information. Director/ Secretary Bernard replied that Staff would investigate and report to the Commission at its next regular meeting on January 10, 1995. Vice Chairman Mowlds was concerned that the next agenda would be too lengthy if the entire Development Code was reviewed, since the controversial horse issue, as well as the convenience store item, could generate many speakers. Commissioner Wang asked if the Development Code, minus the horse issue, could be rescheduled to the following meeting and inquired as to the public interest expressed thus far in the proposed convenience store. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 21 E • Associate Planner Silverman replied that so far there had been comments received from two residents only, but she expected that there would be considerable interest once the public notice was issued. Director/ Secretary Bernard noted that the Commission could adjourn to a special meeting to be held between the next two regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings (January 10 and January 24, 1995). A discussion ensued between Staff and the Commission regarding the circulation of an environmental document for the convenience store item and it was determined that it would still be in circulation on January 10, 1995. Chairman Alberio asked the convenience store applicant to come forward. Mr. Bill Meyers, applicant, 4779 North Ohio Street, Yorba Linda 92686. Mr. Meyers explained that he had been planning an expansion of his business for about a year. He went on to explain that he was currently in escrow to purchase the property from Mobil Oil, and had received an extension to February 15, 1995. He needed to know whether his expansion request would be granted by the City before the escrow closed. Chairman Alberio inquired about any delays in processing Mr. Meyers' application and asked if the City had complicated Mr. Meyers' dilemma. Associate Planner Silverman indicated that Staff had been trying to expedite the matter whenever possible. Mr. Meyers agreed that Staff had been very helpful and he was most appreciative. Chairman Alberio noted that the project was deemed complete in October 1994. Commissioner Hayes pointed out that encouraging business in the City was important and suggested that the Development Code discussion, except for the horse issue, be removed from the January 10, 1995 agenda, or addressed at a special meeting. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if hearing Mr. Meyers' item on January 10, 1995 would provide enough time for Staff preparation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 22 0 01 Director/ Secretary Bernard replied that it might be possible to adopt a Resolution on that night, depending on whether or not comments were received from the environmental document circulation, which should be complete by January 10, 1995. Associate Planner Silverman added that this would depend on when the circulation period began. She believed that it would be possible to begin circulation of the document on a timely basis, but she could not anticipate problems which might interfere with the proposed schedule. Planning Administrator Petru noted that the Staff Report would not be prepared until the week after City Hall was closed for the holidays. Director/ Secretary Bernard suggested that, since the Public Hearing for discussion of the Development Code had been continued to January 10, 1995, the Commission could just discuss the Large Domestic Animal Overlay Zone (as planned) and continue the review of the entire Development Code to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 24, 1995. Moving to a different topic, Director/ Secretary Bernard apologized that tonight's hearing had become adversarial but felt strongly that, when originally hired, he had been asked to protect his Staff and suggested that future meetings between Staff and the Cahills be recorded so that there were no doubts as to any comments made. Chairman Alberio agreed that this would be a good idea. Director/ Secretary Bernard noted that, since several of the current Planning Commissioners had applied for the vacant City Council position, this might the last opportunity to thank and congratulate the entire Commission for their first year together. Director/ Secretary Bernard, on behalf of Staff, also wished the Commissioners and their family a Happy Holiday season. B. Commission Vice Chairman Mowlds extended the best of luck to all the candidates for the City Council position. Chairman Alberio thanked Staff and members of the Commission for their cooperation over the past year and wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 23 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ferraro moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to adjourn. Motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:10 P.M. to its next regular meeting on January 10, 1995 (noting that the December 27, 1994 meeting had been cancelled due to the holidays). (A.ID MINUTES DISK A6 - MIN12 13) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1994 PAGE 24