Loading...
PC MINS 19950912APPROVEDt 9/26/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 12, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Mowlds at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Ferraro. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds. ABSENT: None Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Assistant Planners de Freitas and Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary Drasco. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Administrator Petru suggested that the agenda be reordered to hear the Development Code, Item No. 4, after Item No. 7. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff• None commission: Vice Chair Hayes reported that Joan Wright, a City resident, had called her to ask if she would accompany her to look at the houses and driveways above Wayfarer's Chapel. Vice Chair Hayes indicated that she had visited the site with Ms. Wright. Commissioner Alberio stated that he had received the same request and that he had done the same, but that he had merely looked at what Ms. Wright had pointed out and listened to her comments. Commissioner Ferraro added that Ms. Wright had also phoned her, but that she had been unable to visit the site with her. Chairman Mowlds said that Commissioner Vannorsdall had distributed to all the Commissioner a list of questions to be discussed by the Commission during the review of Variance No. 384 - Clarification (Item No. 4). APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 1995 Commissioner Wang stated that, on Page 4 on Line 4 of Paragraph 10, the word "potion" should be replaced with "portion". Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that, on Page 5, Line 3 of Paragraph 7, the latter part of the sentence be changed to read "...the applicant should be required to build on caissons into the bedrock". Vice Chair Hayes moved to accept the Minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 1995 Commissioner Ferraro asked that the minutes reflect that her absence was excused. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that, on Page 2, on Line 6 of Paragraph 3, the measurement of 115 inches" should be corrected to 115 feet"; and that, Page 3, on Line 1 of Paragraph 2, the word "opposed" should be changed to "oppose". Vice Chair Hayes stated that, on Page 9, on Line 4 of Paragraph 2, the word "be" should be inserted into the sentence, to read "would not have to be studied carefully". Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept the Minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (6-0-1), with Commissioner Ferraro abstaining as she was not present at the meeting of August 22, 1995. 3. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING; Greg Gawlik, 16 Seacove Drive. (FF) Without discussion, Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the Staff's recommend to approve the item, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS (Item No. 4 was heard after Item No. 7) 5. VARIANCE NO. 392 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1819; Arthur Fein, 27520 Elmbridge Drive. (DJ) Planning Administrator Petru presented an oral report, stating that Staff was recommending that the item be continued to October 10, 1995 to allow time for the structural and geological studies to be completed and reviewed by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 2 1�1 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue the item to October 10, 1995, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Approved, (-7-0). Commissioner Vannorsdall recommended that all the Commissioners visit Mr. Fein's property. At Mr. Fein's request, Commissioner Vannorsdall announced Mr. Fein's phone number so that each member of the Commissioner could make sure Mr. Fein would be at home during the site visit. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 185, VARIANCE NO. 388, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1793, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 676; Wayfarers Chapel, 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South. (TS) Planning Administrator Petru presented an oral report, stating that Staff had recommended continuation of this item to September 26, 1995 but was amending that recommendation to continue the public hearing to October 10, 1995. She explained that the geology report might not be ready for the meeting on September 26, 1995. Commissioner Alberio questioned the agreement with Mr. Jim York, the adjoining property owner regarding his allowing the project to be built right up to his property line. Mr. Alberio believed that a delay would provide time to verify this agreement. Vice Chair Hayes also had reservations about the fact that a 1.5 safety factor was not present since she considered this project to be a new structure, rather than a replacement structure. Therefore, she favored postponement until all the data was available. Commissioner Ferraro suggested that there should be a new (de novo) public hearing. Commissioner Mowlds indicated that he had discussed the situation regarding the potential lot line adjustment between Filiorum and Wayfarers with Jim York and would disclose the contents of that conversation at the next hearing. He also favored re -noticing a new public hearing and asked Staff if there would be sufficient time to re -notice for the October 10, 1995 meeting. Planning Administrator said there would be enough time. Chairman Mowlds suggested that, at the time of the hearing, more reassurance would be needed regarding the location of the dewatering wells and detailed geology reports. Commissioner Alberio moved to re -notice this project for a new public hearing on October 10, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (7-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 3 Commissioner vannorsdall wanted to make sure the City geologist would be present at the meeting on October 10, 1995. Mrs. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Larue recalled her history of attending Planning Commission and City Council meetings since 1988 and the topics which interest her, stating that she had heard a rumor that the City Council was displeased with the Planning Commission's decision to conceptually approve the new building. PUBLIC HEARINGS (NO ITEMS) NEW BUSINESS 7. VARIANCE NO. 384 - Clarification, Phil Dunlap, 2485 San Ramon Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. She stated that on July 7, 1995, the applicant submitted revised plans which indicate that the portion of the wall located behind the residence on Palos Verdes Drive East would be 1021 in length and also depicted a new 61-011 high wooden entry gate. The blueprints reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 14, 1995 indicated a freestanding wall which extended 371-011 in length, as measured from the rear elevation of the residence, and which had no entry gate. However, at the time of that hearing, the applicant submitted a copy of a letter sent to the San Ramon Homeowners Association dated February 12, 1995, indicating a total length of 2001-01, for the portion of the wall to be located along Palos Verdes Drive East, and elevations which depicted the height of the wall, but without a scale indicated. It should also be noted that the extended portion of the wall would be adjacent to a portion of the rear yard that slopes steeply downward from Palos Verdes Drive East. Therefore, the additional length is not necessary for privacy within the residence or the remaining level yard area. Staff is also concerned that the wall would now block the view of the harbor that can currently be seen from Palos Verdes East. Since the adopted conditions of approval for Variance No. 384 required the completed wall to substantially conform to the plans reviewed by the Commission at the public hearing, and are in conflict with the plans submitted to Staff in July 1995, Staff is seeking clarification from the Commission regarding the approved length of the wall behind the residence. Commissioner Alberio asked whose view would be blocked by the wall. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 4 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that, as indicated by the photo board provided to the Commission, it was the ocean and harbor view available from the public right-of-way on Palos Verdes Drive East. Commissioner Alberio questioned whether someone driving by would actually see the view because the traffic moved rapidly in this area. Commissioner Wang asked what the Commission's decision was at the last meeting regarding the length of the wall. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein answered that there was a discrepancy in that the blueprints indicated 371 in length behind the residence but the applicant, Mr. Dunlap, had submitted a letter and an 8 x 10 photograph indicating that he wanted the wall to be 2001 in total length. Mr. Dunlap submitted revised plans in July 1995 (she indicated the white copy of plans posted on the wall) which showed 1021 in length behind the residence. Staff was using the 371 measurement from the blueprints, when the applicant pointed out the letter that was in the City files. Mr. Phil Dunlap (applicant), 2845 San Ramon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Dunlap explained that the package provided to the Planning Commission that evening contained his original submission to the Planning Commission, which was for a 2001 long wall. He stated that he had later come back to the Commission asking that the height of the wall match the neighbor's existing wall across the street. An understanding was reached for a height of 81-611 at the point where the wall protects the house and 61-011 beyond the back of the house in the rear yard. He also expressed concern about safety, stating that a longer wall would prevent a car dropping down the steep slope in his rear yard. Mr. Dunlap closed by stating that the neighbor's wall was 1771-011 long and that the length of 2001-011 he requested would match the existing wall and provide a little extra length for safety. Commissioner Alberio agreed that the longer wall might improve safety by acting as a guardrail along Palos Verdes Drive East. Mrs. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Kelly asked what Staff's recommendation was. Planning Administrator Petru replied that Staff had not made a recommendation and that they were seeking direction from the Commission because there were two sets of conflicting drawings. Mrs. Kelly requested that the Planning Commission take the appropriate action. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 5 Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that it was apparent to him that adequate instruction were not being given, since Mr. Dunlap was back for the third time before the Commission. Commissioner Vannorsdall reported that he had provided to each Commissioner a list of clarifications that should be provided to the landowner, if the Commission concurred. At the suggestion of Commissioner Ferraro, Commissioner Vannorsdall gave a copy to Mr. Dunlap also. Commissioner Wang felt that the wall should be uniform with the existing wall across the street, but that the public view should also be preserved. Chairman Mowlds outlined a history of similar situations in which a public view from the right-of-way had been preserved, mentioning specifically the Subregion 1 and Transamerica projects. However, he noted that in those instances, provisions had not been made for vehicular safety. Planning Administrator added that for the tract at Sea Bluff Drive just east of Long Point, the view had been preserved but that a guard rail had also been installed for safety. She suggested that possibly, in this case, a low stucco wall could be installed instead of a guard rail if the Commission thought a barrier was appropriate. Commissioner Vannorsdall raised each issue on his list, with his suggestions: 1. The footing which has been dug is satisfactory in its location except that it does not go around the corner in front as far as the wall across the street at 2844 San Ramon Drive. This should be extended to present a balanced appearance. Mr. Dunlap said that he would be willing to comply with this suggestion. 2. Both the new wall and the existing retaining wall should be stucco finished and painted to match the wall across the street. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that this was already a condition of approval for the Variance. 3. Both the new wall and the existing retaining wall should be capped with brick in a similar manner to the wall across the street at 2844 San Ramon Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 6 4. The new wall should have pilasters and transitions in height to mimic the wall across the street. 5. The maximum height above the sidewalk shall be 8'-6" (maximum height) in the area at the rear of the house and 6'-6" beyond the back of the house toward the rear property line. Mr. Dunlap agreed to comply with Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 6. The maximum length of the wall from the north end of the wall to the curve section of the wall shall not exceed 81 feet. This allows for ten feet of wall beyond the rear of the house along Palos Verdes Drive East. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the original drawings showed 37' behind the rear of the house. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that the original blueprints had been revised to indicate 102' beyond the rear elevation of the house. Chairman Mowlds noted that this measurement would be determined by the Planning Commission that evening. 7. This does not allow for a gate or any other modification that would not give the same appearance as the existing wall across the street. 8. The applicant may wish to consider a "return" section of the wall for a short distance across the rear of the house, no more than ten feet in length and to match the style of the side wall. Mr. Dunlap said that he believed this was a good ida. There was further discussion among the Planning Commissioners, with input from Staff and the applicant regarding the length of the wall. It was determined that Staff had indicated to Mr. Dunlap that he could proceed with construction of the 37' length behind the house prior to that evening's hearing, since this was the length indicated on the plans reviewed by the Commission in February 1995. Several straw votes were taken, before a vote was taken on the final configuration. Commissioner Alberio moved to allow a maximum height of 616" past the house, dropping down to 42" in three graduated steps of approximately 12' in length. The 42" high portion of the wall PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 7 could extend to the rear property line, if so desired by the landowner. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Approved (7-0). Commissioner Alberio asked that Staff investigate if there was a potential traffic safety hazard in this area for which a guard rail might be appropriate. Planning Administrator Petru replied that the matter would be referred to the Public Works Department. CONTINUED BUSINESS (continued) (Item No. 4 was re -ordered to be heard after Item No. 6) 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Chairman Mowlds commended the Staff for its perseverance in working on this project and felt that the final format was excellent. Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the presentation of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). Senior Planner Rojas made the following clarifications. On "circle" Page 32, letter "C" and "D" should not be double underlined and that this page would be amended. On "circle" Page 68, letter "E" made reference to a decibel level which could be changed if the City Council approved the Noise Ordinance, which was currently being reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Rojas added that the City Attorney had suggested that any word referenced in the definitions should be italicized in the Code text. Chairman Mowlds suggested that since some members of the Commission had seen this material five times, and others three times, it would be necessary only to review Pages 3 through 6 of that evening's Staff Report, in which Senior Planner Rojas had indicated the changes since the Commission's last review. The consensus of the Commission was to fallow this plan. Chairman Mowlds asked if there were corrections needed on Page 3 and there were none mentioned by the other Commission members. Chairman Mowlds asked about Chapters 17.14 and 17.18, referenced on Page 4 of the Staff Report, asking why the right to appeal was deleted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 8 Senior Planner Rojas clarified that this portion of the Code contained revisions from 1991 which eliminated various levels of appeals for certain permits. Staff was planning to point out these instances to the City Council, but if the Commission wished to re -instate the right to appeal, for these permits, Staff would make the necessary changes. Chairman Mowlds indicated that, because the Commission was not an elected body, he believed the right to appeal to the City Council should be retained. The other Commissioners concurred. Senior Planner Rojas replied that he would make the change in both Chapters 17.14 and 17.18 Chairman Mowlds suggested that in Section 17.32.050.A3 the reference to "clubhouses" as an allowed use in an Open Space Hazard Zone should be removed. He felt that only non-structural uses should be listed. The other Commissioner agreed with Commissioner Mowlds suggestion and Senior Planner said that he would make the change. Commissioner Vannorsdall believed that a definition should be included for the word "ancillary" Chairman Mowlds responded that the City Council was going to define that word, as there had been much debate about the exact meaning within the context of the Code. He added that in the middle of Page 5, Section 17.32.040A3 was not shown, which allows access through an Open Space Hazard Zone for lawful use. Senior Planner expressed his understanding, stating that this was the last third of the citation. Chairman Mowlds complemented the Staff for adding the language in Chapter 17.42.040A, to prevent a developer from using any land which was steeper than 35% in the density calculation for a Residential Planned Development (RPD). Vice Chair Hayes noted that on "circle" Page 66, toward the bottom of the page, in "Ll", there was a missing word after "where there are" Senior Planner Rojas made a note of the omission. Mrs. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Kelly noted that, unless she was mistaken, Chairman Mowlds was the only Planning Commissioner with construction experience. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 9 Chairman Mowlds responded that there were several other Commissioners who also had construction experience, specifically Commissioners Whiteneck, Vannorsdall, and Alberio. Mrs. Kelly expressed her concern that the Development Code Revisions had not been published in the newspapers and stressed specifically that views had to be protected. Chairman Mowlds reassured Mrs. Kelly that the Commission had heard comments from the public at many hearings on this topic Planning Administrator added that the first public hearing had been noticed in the newspaper and that every hearing thereafter had been continued to a date certain. Senior Planner Rojas noted when speakers expressed interest in a particular portion of the Code, they were notified by mail when that portion would be reviewed again, so that they could attend the hearing if they wished. Commissioner Alberio asked if copies would be placed in public buildings when the revisions were ready for City Council review. Senior Planner Rojas confirmed that copies would be available at City Hall, libraries, and any other location determined to be appropriate for public access. Commissioner Mowlds moved to accept the revisions as amended to be held for forwarding to the City Council when all Commission review was completed, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff: 8. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, September 26, 1995. Commission• None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items): Mrs. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Kelly stressed the need for the public to be given the opportunity to review and comment on the Development Code revisions and was particularly concerned with compliance with the General Plan and preserving views. Mrs. Kelly offered to publish the revisions in the newspaper and provide a copy to the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 10 yLE Commissioner Ferraro moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Wang. The motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 8;35 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on September 26, 1995. (A JDM1N#11 - MIN9 12) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1995 PAGE 11