Loading...
PC MINS 19950228APPROVED 3/14/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M., by Chairman Mowlds at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Chairman Mowlds. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Bernard, Senior Planner Rojas, Assistant Planner Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary Drasco. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Director/Secretary Bernard informed the Commission that they had been provided that evening with a map for Item 1 which had been inadvertently omitted from their packets and diagrams for Item 6 submitted by the applicant immediately before the start of the meeting. B. COMMISSION Chairman Mowlds noted former City Councilman Robert Ryan's many contributions to the City, including the Coastal Specific Plan, and incorporation of the City. The Chairman referred to Mr. Ryan as a founder of the City, and requested a moment of silence in his memory. Commissioner Ferraro mentioned that she had received a thank you note from Mr. Tom Matharu on Bayridge and a lengthy letter from Mr. Rollin Sturgeon, a copy of which she would provide for the other Commissioners. Director/Secretary Bernard replied that he would make copies for each member of the commissioner and other appropriate City officials. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Whiteneck moved to approve the consent calendar, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (7-0). 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 - REVISION 'IF"; Shapell Industries, Tract No. 33206 (CP) Requested Action: Revise the previously approved construction schedule to extend the starting date for Phase III for three and one half (3-1/2) years. Action: APPROVED THE REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS, VIA MINUTE ORDER. The Commission allowed a speaker for item 1. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue spoke in support of the project, noting its contribution to the beauty of the area. 2. HEIGHT VARIATION 797 -APPEAL; Mr. and Mrs. Cahill, 2139 Summerland Drive. (KK) Requested Action: Revision of the proposed second story addition to a maximum height of 261- 011. Action: CONTINUED THE ITEM TO THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 14, 1995. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23912, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 661, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1727, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1743; Mr. Ducharme, 6324 Via Colinita. (KK) Requested Action: Revision of the proposed division of a vacant 33,853 square foot lot in the RS -3 zoning district into two parcels, to accommodate (future) development of two (new) single family homes. Action: CONTINUED THE ITEM TO THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 14, 1995. CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. 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 summarized the Staff Report stating that discussions between Staff and the City Attorney in reviewing the latest revised version of the Development Code, brought forth the issue of when the Development Code would go into effect. The City Attorney indicated that the point at which applications PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 2 would be subject to the new Code could be instituted by the City any time from the time of application submittal to before construction began. Therefore Staff was asking for direction from the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council and provided some options for implementation. A discussion between Staff and the Commission established that the Commission considered option 2, with Sub -Option 4 (as described in the Staff Report) to be the most appropriate. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the Public Hearing to March 14, 1995, for consideration of the final draft revisions to Titles 16 and 17 of the Municipal (Development) Code, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. VARIANCE NO. 384 - CLARIFICATION; Mr. and Mrs. Dunlap, 2845 San Ramon Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report, indicating that the applicant was seeking clarification regarding the conditions of approval and provided recent photographs she had taken. Ms. Klopfenstein made reference to a separate issue of three new non -permitted walls (mentioned in the Staff Report) and stated that the amount of grading which had taken place had not been determined at that time. However, if the grading did not exceed 31-011 of cut or fill or 20 cubic yards, no permit would be needed. She added that Staff would be working with the applicants to submit the appropriate permit applications for the walls. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Assistant Planner Klopfenstein to explain the drawings provided to the commission just prior to the meeting. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that she had briefly spoken to the applicant regarding the drawings immediately before the meeting began. Mr. and Mrs. Dunlap indicated that they wanted to keep the existing retaining wall located adjacent to the sidewalk and set back the new solid block wall (proposed) one foot from the retaining wall, in order to create a planter area. Both Staff and the applicant were asking for clarification from the Commission as to how to measure the height of the new block wall. Commissioner Alberio responded that it was his understanding that the wall was to match the non -permitted wall on the other side of the street to create the sense of a tract entrance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 3 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that she understood that the Commission wanted the Dunlap's new wall to look the same as the one across the street, which had no retaining wall in front of the solid wall. However, because the wall across the street was non -permitted and non -conforming, the owner would be required to obtain a Variance and, if the matter was brought before the Commission, they could require a planter area to be created. Commissioner Alberio indicated that the Commission's previous direction to the Staff overlooked the fact that the retaining wall was necessary because of the grade difference between the building pad and the sidewalk. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein verified that, if the retaining wall was removed, a slope of about 45 degrees would have to be created to prevent erosion onto the sidewalk. Commissioner Alberio asked about the height of the wall across the street. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that at the highest point the wall was 61211, as measured from the sidewalk. Vice Chair Hayes expressed doubt that Mr. and Mrs. Dunlap would want to keep the existing retaining wall against the sidewalk, and hoped it would be removed and the area in front of the new wall would be landscaped. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that she had not received revised plans from the applicant and that Staff was only asking for a clarification of how to measure the height of the new wall. However, she suggested the applicant could address the Commission's concerns in this regard. Chairman Mowlds called the applicant forward. Mr. Philip Dunlap, 2845 San Ramon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Dunlap thanked the Planning Commission for its approval of the Variance and thanked his neighbors for their unanimous support of his project. He referred to the drawings provided to the Commission that evening and said that he wanted to build his wall to be symmetrical with the one across the street. Since Palos Verdes Drive East had an upgrade to the west, there would be a bit of imbalance if the two walls were matched exactly. He explained that he wanted to set back the new wall from the existing retaining wall so that it came around the corner exactly like the neighbor's wall. He added that if a setback of 31-011 was appropriate, he would comply because he wanted to create an attractive entrance to the community. The area in front of the new wall would be landscaped with possibly juniper and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 4 bougainvillea and both walls would be stuccoed and capped with brick. He also reiterated that the purpose of the wall was to provide privacy and a sound barrier. Commissioner Wang asked about construction vehicles she saw at Mr. Dunlap's property. Mr. Dunlap explained that he and his wife were also in the process of adding 800 square feet to their home. Commissioner Ferraro asked if Mr. Dunlap was proposing to remove the existing retaining wall. Mr. Dunlap hoped to keep the existing retaining wall in order to avoid a 45 degree cut into the slope and soften the wall with vegetation. Vice Chair Hayes wondered, as referenced on Page 2 of Mr. Dunlap's drawings, if there would be a 11-011 setback for vegetation or not. Mr. Dunlap replied that he was trying to comply with what he believed to be the Planning Commission's recommendations to set back the new wall from the existing retaining wall adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive East. He added that Public Works had determined there was no visibility impact for traffic and the Planning Department Staff had recommended setting back the wall and planting vegetation for a softening effect. Vice Chair Hayes said that it was her understanding that the planter area would extend to the corner. Mr. Dunlap responded that this could be possible. However, he was simply trying to match the neighbor's wall. Vice Chair Hayes stated that she had no objection to raising the height of the wall toward the back of Mr. Dunlap's residence for more privacy. Commissioner Alberio saw no problem with the plan on Page 2 of Mr. Dunlap's drawings, but said he would like to see the wall set back along San Ramon Drive. Mr Alberio asked Mr. Dunlap if he had any objection to providing landscaping to eventually grow as high as the wall, to soften its appearance along its entire length. Mr. Dunlap replied that he had no objection and repeated that he wanted to match the symmetry of the wall across the street to create an "entrance" to the tract. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 5 Chairman Mowlds pointed out that the wall Mr. Dunlap proposed appeared to be 10'-0" in height and said that the one -foot setback would not be apparent to someone driving down the road, but a 10'-0" high wall would be. Chairman Mowlds asked the maximum height of the wall across the street and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said it was 6'-211. Director/Secretary Bernard indicated that on page 4 of the Staff report, there was a graph showing the lowest to the highest point of the wall across the street at 2844 San Ramon Drive. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that there was a small berm adjacent to the wall at 2844 San Ramon Drive (toward Marymount) and that the maximum height of the illegal wall was measured from the sidewalk to the top of the wall. Commissioner Vannorsdall believed that the wall the Commission approved at the last meeting was 8'-6" at the rear of Mr. Dunlap's property, as measured from the sidewalk. He believed the retaining wall should remain to save money, the new wall should be set back to create a planter, and the total height of the walls should be measured from the sidewalk and not be 10'-0" high. Director/Secretary Bernard agreed and said that this was also Staff's interpretation and Staff believed that the concept was to have the new wall appear to be the same height as the wall located on the other property (2844 San Ramon Drive) and, even though this plan might not be as effective for noise attenuation, it would be consistent with the way Staff normally measured the height of combination retaining walls and freestanding walls. Vice Chair Hayes felt this was an accurate interpretation. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein emphasized that this was Mr. Dunlap's original request. Chairman Mowlds asked if any of the Commissioners disagreed with a maximum height of 8'-611. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein asked if the Commission wished to have the new wall match exactly in height, the existing, non - permitted wall across the street. Chairman Mowlds said it would not match at 8'-611, if located above the retaining wall, because it would be more than 2'-0" higher than the wall at 2844 San Ramon Drive. Commissioner Vannorsdall speculated that the height of the walls did not have to be exactly the same because the intent was that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 6 0 they have the same style and type of construction, and graduated down in a similar manner. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein asked that, since the new wall would be set back from the existing retaining wall, from where would the height of the new wall be measured? Chairman Mowlds responded that the reference plane would be the sidewalk. Commissioner Vannorsdall stressed that any part of the second wall which would become part of the retaining wall would have to be engineered as such. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that Mr. Dunlap was originally proposing a freestanding wall on the upper elevation of the property and he also asked that the pilasters be 611-011 above each portion of the wall. Commissioner Vannorsdall believed that the pilasters should be the same as the existing wall at 2844 San Ramon Drive. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein pointed out that Page 2 of Mr Dunlap's diagram indicated that the wall at the corner of San Ramon Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East would be 31-811 as it went around the corner, while the neighbor's wall was 3f-011 adjacent to the driveway and increased to 41-611. Chairman Mowlds preferred to discuss general philosophy, stating that, from the driveway coming around the corner, the two walls should match but, once they go around the corner, differences were inevitable, because one would be going uphill and the other would remain level. Mr. Mowlds asked if the Commission agreed. The only exception was Commissioner Alberio, but he felt that landscaping would camouflage the appearance of the wall. Vice Chair Hayes asked about matching the landscaping on both walls. Director/Secretary Bernard explained that, following normal procedure, the owner of the illegal wall would be given two options. The first would be to take the wall down, and the second would be to apply for an after -the -fact Variance. Landscaping could be a condition of approval if the Variance application was submitted. Chairman Mowlds asked the Commission to establish the location of the beginning of the 11-011 setback in relation to the front corner (northwest elevation) of the house, because the drawing did not specify that location. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 7 Mr. Dunlap (from the audience) said that it was currently about 81-011 forward from the corner of the residence. Chairman Mowlds asked if everyone was satisfied with the 81-011 dimension. A discussion among Commissioners determined a consensus that the wall should hug the curb adjacent to San'Ramon and Palos Verdes Drive East then go into the one -foot setback beginning 81-011 in front of the northwest elevation of the residence (facing San Ramon Drive). Chairman Mowlds called the applicant forward and asked if the requirements discussed were acceptable to him. Mr. Dunlap said that the requirements were acceptable to him. Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Dunlap if he had any other comments. Mr. Dunlap said that he did, even though his comment did not directly relate to the Variance. He spoke on behalf of his neighbor stating that the entire community liked the wall at 2844 San Ramon Drive and that he had been willing to spend the money to build a matching wall on his property. Chairman Mowlds thanked Mr. Dunlap for his comment. Mr. Mowlds suggested that he and Mr. Dunlap initial the 81-011 notation on the submitted plans, so that the records would indicate the Commission's and Mr. Dunlap's joint approval. Director/Secretary Bernard clarified to Mr. Dunlap that the City's concern was that his neighbor's wall had been built without any application or review process from the Building and Safety Department. As a result, it might not be properly engineered which might cause it to collapse. He emphasized that it was the City's responsibility to require submittal of an application for review when an illegal condition was brought to the Staff's attention. Commissioner Ferraro asked about the type, of landscaping that would be installed in the planter. Director/Secretary Bernard responded that the applicant would be required to submit a landscaping plan for Staff's review and that a list would be furnished of drought -tolerant plants suggested for planting along streets. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 8 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staf f : 6. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, March 14, 1995. Commission: NONE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Chairman Mowlds reminded the Commission, Staff and audience that in the future, audience comments regarding items not on the agenda, in accordance with Government Code 54.95.43, would be limited to subjects over which the Planning Commission had jurisdiction. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue discussed Robert Ryan's political career. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 7:52 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on March 14, 1995. (A JDMIN#8 - MIN2 28) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 9