Loading...
PC MINS 19950711 110( APPROVED 8/8/95 'v CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 11, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7 :02 P.M. by Vice Chair Hayes at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Code Enforcement Officer Jon Pollard. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Wang, Whiteneck, and Vice Chair Hayes. ABSENT: Commissioner Vannorsdall and Chairman Mowlds (both excused). Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Associate Planner Silverman, Assistant Planner Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary Drasco. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Wang moved to approve the Agenda, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (5-0) . COMMUNICATIONS Staff: Planning Administrator Petru introduced the City's new Code Enforcement Officer, Jon Pollard, summarizing his professional background and welcoming him to the City. Ms. Petru asked if there was anyone present for the Marriott Senior Lifecare Facility Appeal, since a notice to that effect had been sent in error. She noted that a subsequent, corrected, notice was mailed indicating that the item was to be heard before the City Council on July 18, 1995. She stated that two newsletters had been provided to the Commission regarding a California Supreme Court decision related to toxic substances and insurance, and a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the Endangered Species Act. Planning Administrator Petru reported that two pieces of late correspondence regarding Item No. 3 had been provided to members of the Commission. Commission: Commissioner Ferraro indicated that she had received a phone call from Dr. Hung, a neighbor of the applicant for Item No. 3 . APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1814; Walter and Darlene Carlos, 16 Saddle Road. (DJ) Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Consent Calendar, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Commissioner Ferraro moved to continue this item to September 12, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (5-0). 3. HEIGHT VARIATION 806 - APPEAL; Gus and Kimberly Mantikas, 60 Avenida Corona. (KK) Commissioner Wang recused herself from considering this item and left the dais. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report, indicating that, since the Planning Commission last considered this project, the redesign of pro3ect including eliminating the pitched roof and lowering the height of the entry porch to 151. Staff recommended approval because it was felt that the redesign addressed the concerns of the Commission. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein noted that, on Page 5 of 5 of the draft P.C. Resolution, Condition No. 12 should read 15' instead of 16' and that the 15' was the height of the entry porch reflected on the plans. Vice Chair Hayes noted that the project now included an additional 2' side yard setback beyond the original project design. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein agreed that the new home would be 7' from both side property lines. Mr. Juan Kivotos (applicant's architect), 1323 N. Niagara Street, Burbank, CA 91505. Mr. Kivotos had no comments other than to state that the home was redesigned according to the Commission's recommendations. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Kivotos if he agreed with the Staff Report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 2 Mr. Kivotos said that he had done everything he could to compromise and was willing to cooperate with the city. Commissioner Alberio asked if he had seen the latest correspondence regarding the project. Mr. Kivotos said that he had not and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein gave him a copy of the letters. Ms. Jo Boem, 6 La Vista Verde. Ms. Boem stated that she supported the project because the property owner was complying with requirements and was willing to cooperate with the City. Mr. Paul Mathews, 57 Avenida Corona. Mr. Mathews said that he was interested to hear that the height of the roof had been lowered, although he did not know the new proposed height and asked the architect if he could give him that information. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein clarified that the second floor roof was not being lowered, only the height of the entry porch, as shown on the photographs. Mr. Mathews asked if the current silhouette framework on the property was correct. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that it was. Mr. Mathews cited the Code, stating that the applicant was required to consult with neighbors within a 5001 radius of the subject property; and, said that this was not done, therefore, depriving him of the opportunity to discuss the project or respond to the applicant. Mr. Mathews also discussed neighborhood compatibility and provided a document signed by neighbors who agreed that the proposed project was not compatible with the surrounding homes. Mr. Mathews was also concerned about the view of residents as they walked through the neighborhood on Avenida Corona. Mr. John Hung, 4 La Vista Verde. Mr. Hung indicated that he was speaking for his uncle, Dr. Jason Hung, who lived near the subject property, but could not be present that evening. Mr. Hung said that his uncle was opposed to the second story addition because it would diminish his ocean view and breeze, and felt that the proposed structure would be unsightly. Mr. Hung provided photographs to illustrate the view impairment and said that there would be less loss of view if the second story addition was relocated to the south side of the building footprint. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 3 Mr. Juan Kivotos (rebuttal). Mr. Kivotos said that the second story had already been relocated from one side to the other, as requested previously by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Alberio moved to uphold the appeal, per Staff's recommendation, thereby approving the applicant's request, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Vice Chair Hayes remarked that the applicant had shown good faith in complying with the Commission's suggestions. She further stated that she did not believe that there was justification to consider Dr. Hung's issue regarding view impairment, as trees blocked more view than the proposed addition would. Commissioner Ferraro noted that she was not present for the first hearing and, if she had been, she would have opposed the relocation of the second story because she felt the original plan was better in this regard. She believed that a condition should be added to trim the trees on the property to improve the neighbor's view situation. Planning Administrator Petru noted that there was already a Condition of Approval requiring removal of mature trees in the front yard of the property. Vice Chair Hayes suggested that a condition be added that the 71 sideyard setback from the property line must be certified. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that this condition would be added, with the commission's concurrence. A discussion ensued between Commissioner Ferraro and Planning Administrator regarding future requests for additions in this neighborhood in relationship to cumulative view impairment. The motion passed (3-1-1), with Commissioner Ferraro dissenting and commissioner Wang abstaining. Planning Administrator noted that P.C. Resolution 95-26 would be signed that evening and that there would be a 15 -day appeal period. Commissioner Wang returned to the dais. 4. VARIANCE NO. 392 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1819; Arthur Fein, 27520 Elmbridge Drive. (DJ) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 4 Staff's recommendation was to continue this item to September 12, 1995 to allow the applicant to submit additional information to the Staff for review. The applicant asked to make a statement. Mr. Arthur Fein, 27520 Elmbridge Drive. Mr. Fein explained that he did not realize that he needed to have City approval because he was simply replacing a dilapidated deck. He noted that he was willing to cooperate with the City to follow the correct procedures for approval. Commissioner Ferraro moved to continue the item to September 12, 1995, seconded by commissioner Wang. Approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT No. 40; Mr. and Mrs. Tosh Mihira, 21 Crestwind Drive. (FF) Planning Administrator Petru presented the Staff Report, explaining that staff's recommendation for approval was based upon the fact that there is little buildable area on this lot; that there would be no view impairment; and, that there would be screening to make the new deck unobtrusive. She noted that there was a photo board available. Commissioner Alberio and Planning Administrator Petru discussed the possibility of the deck being built near the pool. Ms. Petru explained that the applicant had chosen the proposed location for the deck, that a separate permit would be required for construction near the pool, and that a cantilevered deck would be more expensive in this area because caisson footings would be required. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to open the public hearing, seconded by commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (5-0). Mr. Patrick Killen (applicant's architect), 912 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266. Mr. Killen stated that his design had stayed with the allowable 61 cantilever and that he had attempted to determine the best location on the property that would be cost effective to build on. He added that the proposed deck would rely on steel beams, rather than the slope, for support. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Killen about the possibility of building a cantilevered deck near the pool. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 5 Mr. Killen said that he and the applicant favored the proposed design, because of cost effectiveness and the ability to use caissons required to re -build the family room addition. Vice Chair Hayes asked Mr. Killen if he agreed with the proposed Conditions of Approval. He indicated that the applicant agreed with them. Commissioner Ferraro moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Staff Recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (5-0). Vice Chair Hayes noted that P.C. Resolution 95-26 would be signed that evening and that there would be a 15 -day appeal period. 6. VARIANCE NO. 395; Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Chan, 5345 Bayridge Road. (FF) Commissioner Alberio moved to waive presentation of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (5-0). Vice Chair Hayes opened the public hearing. Mr. Thomas Chan (applicant), 5345 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Chan expressed his appreciation that the Commissioners had visited his property. He said that he had read the Staff Report and asked for clarification of the View Covenant. Planning Administrator Petru explained that a voter referendum passed in 1989, Proposition M, added new rules regarding foliage blocking view. It provided that any time a property owner obtained a discretionary building permit, they would have the option of trimming foliage on their property or filing a covenant against the deed. The covenant is a permanent device to ensure that foliage would not impair views in the future and requires that the homeowner maintain the trees at a height of 16' or no higher than the ridge line, whichever is lower. Mr. Chan acknowledged that he understood. Vice Chair Hayes asked him if he agreed to the other conditions. Mr. Chan replied that the proposed Conditions of Approval were acceptable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 6 • Mr. Alex Turlis (applicant's architect), CA 90505. Mr. Turlis indicated that the most cooperative and he agreed with their that he and the Chan family were willing Conditions of Approval. • 23311 Grant, Torrance, Planning Staff had been findings. He stated to comply with the Mr. Cyrus Irani, 5312 Bayridge, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Irani reported to the Commission that he was speaking on behalf of the Silver Spur Beautification Association, which was in favor of the project. Commissioner Ferraro moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Wang moved to accept Staff's recommendation and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 95-28, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (5-0). 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 185, VARIANCE NO. 388, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1793, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 676; Wayfarer's Chapel, 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South. (TS) Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report, noting that this property was located within the boundaries of the Landslide Moratorium Area and that a request for a Moratorium Exception was reviewed and approved in September 1994 by the City Council. She clarified that this approval allowed the applicant to submit the applications for development but did not indicate that the City Council took a position for or against of the project. Ms. Silverman then relayed a history of the property relative to the prior visitor center and the landslide. She explained that the required notice period for the draft Negative Declaration for the project would not expire until after the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, she stated that the item could be continued to July 25, 1995 for additional testimony, or to the August 8, 1995 meeting, at which time final action could be taken on the proposed project. 0 It was the informal consensus of the Commission that the item should be heard at both of those meetings. Vice Chair Hayes opened the public hearing. Mr. Dean Andrews (applicant and project architect), 10664 Upland, San Pedro, CA 90732. Mr. Andrews praised the Staff's thoroughness in covering all the pertinent issues. He explained that the abandoned Visitor Center on the property was unsightly and that the temporary off-site location one-quarter mile from the Chapel was often missed by visitors to the site. He believed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 7 that approval of the proposed changes, including improvements to the existing amphitheater to accommodate outdoor weddings, would provide better visitor information and services, and would enhance the image of the Chapel. Commissioner Alberio remarked to Mr. Andrews that there were serious concerns about the project because of the location of the Chapel in the City's Landslide Area and Mr. Andrews replied that he was aware of the situation. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue reminded the Commission that the subject property was moving constantly and she did not understand why anyone would want to build an additional structure on this property. However, she indicated that she had no objection to the project, as long as the applicant would hold the City harmless. Ms. Larue also detailed several minor errors in the Staff Report. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the public hearing to July 25, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (5-0). Associate Planner Silverman requested that the Commission provide some direction to Staff, with regards to any concerns to be addressed for the next meeting. After a discussion of the issues, the Commission decided that it would be appropriate for Staff and Commission to meet at the site with the City Geologist prior to the August 8, 1995 meeting. Planning Administrator suggested two possible dates, July 26 and August 2, with the exact date to be determined later. Commissioner Whiteneck asked if the City was observing the movement of the landslide at this site. Planning Administrator Petru responded that the City monitored the landslide constantly using satellite technology and other methods. However, she was not sure if there was a remote sensory device on the subject property. Associate Planner Silverman acknowledged that the site was within the City's Landslide Moratorium and added that a Hold Harmless Agreement was a standard condition for building in the moratorium area. Commissioner Ferraro asked if the new building would remain sound. Vice Chair Hayes replied that the City Geologist could comment on that point during the proposed site visit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 8 NEW BUSINESS 8. Review of a draft letter recommending that City Council change the fee schedule for Tentative Parcel Maps from the current flat fee to a trust deposit account. (CP) The Commission reviewed the draft letter prior to the meeting and it was approved, (5-0), and signed at the meeting by all the Commissioners present. Chairman Mowlds signed the letter at City Hall earlier that day and it was determined that Commissioner Vannorsdall would be asked to sign the letter upon his return. 9. Discussion of payment of Appeal fees in conjunction with a Fee Waiver Request. (CP) Planning Administrator Petru stated that Commissioner Alberio had raised this issue at the last meeting. She reported that the City's Development Code required that an appeal be submitted in writing, accompanied by a fee. However, recently a Fee Waiver Request was submitted to the City Council in lieu of payment. A discussion between Staff and the City Attorney determined that this practice was not technically in conformance with the Code, but it did comply with the intent of the Code, since the appeal was not processed until the Council made a determination on the Fee Waiver Request. In addition,this procedure eliminated the time-consuming process of the Finance Department processing a check and then possibly refunding it. The City Attorney suggested that an alternative would be to receive the check and hold it until the City Council made a decision and, if the Fee Waiver was granted, the check could be returned to the applicant. There was a consensus that the procedure of holding the check seemed like an appropriate compromise, but that further study was warranted. In a related topic, Vice Chair asked about common situations in which an applicant appealed a denial, redesigned the project, won the appeal and received a full refund of the appeal fee. She believed this was not warranted, because significant Staff time was required in these cases. Planning Administrator explained that the current practice of refunding the fee when an appeal was upheld was based on the concept that the appellant concept was that his was justified in their action and, therefore, was entitled to the refund of the appeal fee. Vice Chair Hayes reiterated that this should not apply when the original plan was redesigned, in order to be approved by the Commission during the appeal hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 9 Planning Administrator Petru suggested that a letter could be drafted for Commission review at the next meeting regarding the issue of payment of appeal fees when a Fee Waiver Request is submitted. However, Ms. Petru suggested that the issue of appeal fees in conjunction with a re -designed project could be discussed when the Commission reviewed the final draft of the Development Code Revision. The Commission concurred. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff: 10. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, July 25, 1995. Commission: None. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, commented on the status of the City's Code Enforcement program and on the new Code Enforcement Officer. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Wang. The motion carried (5-0) and the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:17 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on July 25, 1995. (A.7DMINN10 - MIN7 11) s PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 10 U