Loading...
PC MINS 19951024APPROVED 12/12/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P M (an earlier starting time) by Acting Chair Hayes at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Whiteneck PRESENT Commissioners Albeno, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck, Acting Chair Hayes. ABSENT. Commissioner Wang Also present were the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Bernard, and Recording Secretary Drasco APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director/Secretary Bernard suggested that Items No 5, 8, and 9 be heard first so that the planner for these projects, Fabio de Freitas, could leave as early as possible because he was seriously ill. He also suggested that the Development Code Revisions be discussed at the end of the meeting, pursuant to past Commission practice. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept the re -ordering of the agenda as proposed by Director/Secretary Bernard, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Bernard noted that there were resolutions for Items No. 5 and 6 which had not been completed until late that afternoon and that they had been delivered to each of the Commissioners' homes He stated that there was also a late fax received at City Hall that afternoon for Item No 9 and that this had also been placed before the Commissioners In addition, Director/Secretary Bernard reported that the City Manager had informed him that the City of Rolling Hills had experienced an important favorable legal decision regarding its neighborhood compatibility ordinance. 0- Commission - 0 Commissioners Alberto and Vannorsdall, as well as Acting Chair Hayes, stated that they had received a phone call from Mr Ray Medak, the property owner's representative for Item No 8. • - -• • • ,__ �_�,- 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 Commissioner Whiteneck moved to approve the Minutes as written, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (4-0-1), with Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining as he was not present at the meeting of September 26, 1995. 2 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1836; Russ and Carol Freebury, 2426 Colt Road (DJ) Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved by Minute Order, (5-0). 3 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide (TS) Commissioner Alberio moved to forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to accept the General Plan Annual Report to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Vice Chair Hayes pointed out two typographical errors on Pages 6 and 7. She also suggested that on Page 8, a parenthetical addition be made to indicate that Rancho Palos Verdes Park had recently been renamed Robert E Ryan Park Director/Secretary Bernard indicated that these changes would be made. After a short discussion between Commissioner Whiteneck and Director/Secretary Bernard, it was determined that the reference made on Page 11 to a shoreline study by the Army Corps of Engineers indicated that an agreement was being made with the Los Angeles Harbor in terms of mitigation, as part of a multi -tiered project, to complete a feasibility study. Commissioner Alberio amended his motion to accept Staffs recommendation, with the amendments suggested by the Commission, again seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved by Minute Order, (5-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 2 CONTINUED BUSINESS (As noted above, Item No 4 was heard out of order) 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 186 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 673, Taco Bell, 28798 South Western Avenue (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating that the Planning Commission, at its last meeting on October 10, 1995, conceptually approved this project and provided Staff with direction for preparing resolutions of approval which were provided to the Commission for tonight's meeting Commissioner Vannorsdall wanted to make sure that the condition he suggested at the last meeting on October 10, 1995, regarding the final design of the wall was included. He reminded Staff that he had been concerned about the line of sight and the fact that the site was surrounded on three sides by residences so that the wall should hide the (new) structure as much as possible. Acting Chair Hayes was concerned because it appeared that the cost of extending the left turn pocket discussed at the last meeting, was apparently being borne solely by Christ Lutheran Church and she was under the impression it was to be shared equally by the Church and Taco Bell Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that the resolutions for both projects stated the cost for the bond would be paid 100% by that (each) applicant because if one of the projects was approved but (later) not built, the cost would still be provided for by the applicant who did build their project Acting Chair Hayes felt the resolutions should clarify that the cost would be shared by the two applicants Director/Secretary Bernard stated that the resolutions would be changed to indicate this. Commissioner Alberio asked if a refund would be made to the applicant who did not build their project Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that this was correct. Mr William Fancher (applicant's representative), Fancher Development, 1342 Bell Avenue, #3K, Tustin, CA 92680 Mr Fancher was concerned about the bond cost, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 3 stating that the costs to lengthen the left turn pocket could be substantial and he was concerned that Taco Bell would incur additional costs for permits and studies which might be necessary, fearing that the cost for the lengthening of the left turn pocket could be more than the estimated $34,000 Commissioner Alberio assured Mr Fancher that the costs would be shared proportionately by Christ Lutheran Church Director/Secretary Bernard clarified that there was no assurance that both projects would be built and that any costs collected would be refunded as the Commission believed appropriate. Mr Fancher discussed Condition No 11, stating that the maximum height of the proposed structure would possibly exceed 18', to hide the rooftop equipment Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that Staff did not foresee any difficulty of the parapet wall being raised a few inches in order to screen mechanical equipment, especially because this increase in height would not impact any views from surrounding properties. Director/Secretary Bernard noted that the project would be located in a commercial district, which allowed for structure heights up to 30 feet, so that allowing the building height to increase some small portion would not violate the specifications of the Municipal Code He also suggested that the building's height be allowed to a maximum of up to 19 feet -- rather than just a few inches -- to allow for any unforeseen circumstances Commissioner Albeno said that he understood this particular building was a new design Mr Fancher answered that this was correct It was a smaller structure than most Taco Bells, which are normally about 2,000 square feet. He indicated that this particular design had been built only once before Mr. Jim, Bieaa (City's Traffic Consultant), Willdan Associates, 374 Poli Street, Ventura, CA 93001 Mr Biega indicated that he was present to answer questions. Commissioner Alberio said that he had asked, at the last meeting, for additional information regarding the project's impact on traffic at the intersection of Western Avenue and Toscanini Drive and about the length of left turn pocket into the Palos Verdes Plaza shopping area and whether a U-turn could be made there. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 4 Mr Biega replied that he had reviewed Mr. Garland's analysis of this impact and that was included in the packet provided to the Commission. He explained that it was determined that the impact on the intersection of Western Avenue and Toscanini Drive would be insignificant if the Taco Bell and/or the Christ Lutheran Church expansion were built He stated that the Palos Verdes Plaza left turn pocket, which was the first one to the north of the proposed project, was 110' feet long and that U-turns were (currently) allowed Acting Chair Hayes stated that she believed it was necessary to make an extremely rapid lane change to make a U-turn at Palos Verdes Plaza and she wondered if it would be possible to have a U-turn allowed at the left turn pocket at Toscanini Mr. Biega said that the City could make a request through Cal Trans Director/Secretary Bernard noted that Trent Pulliam, Director of the City's Public Works Department was in the audience and that Mr. Pulliam would note and follow-up on the suggestion that the City should contact Cal Trans to make this request Mr. Biega explained that the $34,000 cost to lengthen the left turn pocket at the proposed site was an estimate and the proportional split of the bond cost between Taco Bell (55%) and Christ Lutheran Church (45%) was based on (estimated) traffic for each site at peak hours F- Mr. Richard Garland, (applicant's Traffic Consultant), Stevens Garland Associates, 16787 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Mr. Garland addressed one of the concerns from the last Planning Commission meeting which was potential problems created around Noon on Sunday when the church had a lot of cars exiting combined with the Taco Bell traffic. He explained that on a recent Sunday, he had performed a "gap analysis" which determined that, within a one-hour time period from 11 30 A M to 12 30 P M it was determined that a five -second gap in church traffic would allow one car to exit from Taco Bell, and that a ten -second gap would allow two cars The analysis showed that there were sufficient gaps to allow 167 cars to exit during the peak exit times for the church and it was estimated that there would be only 60 vehicles exiting from the Taco Bell site during this one hour period He added that the through traffic and traffic along Western Avenue was also taken into account for this analysis Mr. Tom Blair (architect for Christ Lutheran Church), 2785 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, CA 90505 Mr Blair expressed concern regarding the allocation of funds for the bond for possibly lengthening the left turn pocket at a later time He believed that 100% for both parties was not appropriate, not only because Taco Bell would generate more traffic, but also because the church had been at its present site for 25 years and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24,1995 PAGE 5 9 the requested expansion of the church facility would not Increase church traffic significantly Ms. Maureen Grieder (representing San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners Coalition), 1931 Avenida Aprenda, Rancho Palos Verdes Ms Grieder reported she represented a coalition of 26 homeowners groups in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes She stated that her organization had had a long history of concern regarding the traffic on Western Avenue and opposed any protect which would increase traffic Mr. Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr Shults Informed the Commission that he was a board member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association but that he was not representing that group. He indicated that it was a consensus of the Association's board members that this protect should not be allowed He added that it appeared it had already been approved. His concerns were not only increased traffic but also Increased light, noise, and crime. Mr. Dan Imbagliazzo, 28608 Mt Palomar Place, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Imbagliazzo said there had been a Taco Bell in the neighborhood before and they had not been good neighbors, their building having been a blight until it was replaced by a Jiffy Lube He believed that, with three fast food restaurants currently nearby, this one was not needed He noted that the three existing fast food restaurants provided exits in both directions on Western Avenue and that this would not. In addition, he felt that the corner of Caddington Drive and Western was dangerous, with a blind curve, and the additional traffic would increase the risk of serious accidents. He was also disturbed by the light, noise, and odors coming from this location which was less than 50 yards from residences Mr Imbagliazzo closed by stating that he hoped the approval was not final and was sorry that he was not aware of the protect sooner Ms. Vicki Livingston (representing Strathmore Townhomes), 1723 Hollifield, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Livingston said that she was In favor of one of the conditions of approval, that of providing speakers at the drive-through which would not be audible, as at the nearby McDonalds She was concerned about the wall on Western at the Strathmore complex, which was only 3-1/2' high She believed that a condition be placed on the approval which would required the wall to be raised to 6' if crime and landscape damage become problems, with the applicant being asked to pay for damages which might occur because of the low wall. Mr. Don Graham, 28621 Friarstone Court, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Graham reported that he was on the Board of Directors at Strathmore but was not speaking in this capacity His concerns were traffic safety, particularly in regard to young children who live in the area, and increased noise and gang activity PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1996 PAGE 6 Ms. Luci Lenker, 28645 Friarstone Court. Rancho Palos Verdes Ms. Lenker stated that she too was a board member at Strathmore She was concerned about potential for traffic accidents, the safety of small children in the neighborhood, decreased property values, and gang activities She reiterated that she felt Taco Bell had not been a good neighbor at the previous location Dr Ramiro Garcia(representing La Pointe Homeowners Association), 1835 Caddington Drive, #63, Rancho Palos Verdes Dr Garcia stated that his residence at La Pointe was directly across the street from the subject property. He agreed with earlier comments regarding potential increased gang activity, vandalism, and burglary (noting two instances in the neighborhood) He also felt it was inappropriate to have Taco Bell nearby to Strathmore. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. At Director/Secretary Bernard's suggestion, Commissioner Vannorsdall withdrew his motion to allow for rebuttal by the applicant (as the Commission had earlier indicated its preference to do so) Mr. William Fancher (rebuttal) Mr Fancher stated that he believed it was easy to be negative about potential problems He acknowledged that the low-priced menu drew a certain type of clientele but felt that did not mean there would be gangs and violence would follow He commented on the recent gang activity at a park near a Taco Bell in the South Bay but did not believe that it was significant that the Taco Bell happened to be adjacent to the park Mr. Fancher pointed out that the Staff Report did not indicate that there had been crime associated with other fast food restaurants in the area near the proposed site He added that the property had long been zoned for commercial use and it was the property owner's right to develop it and, if people chose to live next to commercial property, they should expect that there would a business there eventually. Commissioner Alberio felt that the neighborhood had changed since there was a gas station at this location in 1970 and that there was a lot more traffic than there was when this property was (originally) zoned for commercial use Commissioner Vannorsdall asked the length of the Taco Bell lease Mr Fancher replied that it was a 20 year lease Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr Fancher to discuss (for the benefit of the audience) some mitigating conditions which had been discussed at previous hearings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 7 Mr Fancher explained that the speaker for the drive-through would be positioned lower and faced, away from the residences, toward Western Avenue, with a control inside the building to turn down the volume He also stated that there would be no cooking onsite, only the heating up of food, which would reduce odors He also stated that signs would be posted asking patrons to turn down their radios they went through the drive-through Mr Fancher indicated that the low level lights would be faced downward, that there would be motion sensitive light after hours, and that the restaurant would not be a 24- hour operation as most of the other Taco Bells were Other measures to be considerate of the residential neighbors were the high wall surrounding the facility (to screen from vision and for a sound barrier) landscaped with bougainvillea to discourage graffiti and scaling the wall Commissioner Vannorsdall recommended to Staff that the south wall (facing the church) be 6' to 8' high Director/Secretary Bernard suggested that the height of the wall be left to the discretion of the Director to determine what was best for all parties concerned Commissioner Alberio reported that he had received a call from a City Council member in Lomita who indicated that residents in that City were upset over gang activity at a Taco Bell in that City Mr Fancher was not familiar with the facility and asked Mr Alberio if he knew how long the restaurant had been operating When Commissioner Alberio indicated that it had been there for quite a long time, Mr Fancher said that he worked just with new facilities and, if this one was more than five to six years, he would have no knowledge of it. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Fancher why Taco Bell had not considered The Terraces as the location for their restaurant. Mr Fancher said they preferred an open site and that the space in the Terraces was too small Commissioner Whiteneck moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-0). Acting Chair Hayes pointed out that the subject property was zoned for a commercial use and did not impinge on setbacks She added that the previously proposed project for this area, a car wash, was previously rejected mainly because of noise PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 8 Commissioner Vannorsdall added that a car wash would have had a high level of trafficas well. He believed that the Traffic Consultants' findings must be assumed to be accurate Commissioner Ferraro said that she was still concerned about traffic safety, not being convinced by the traffic consultants' reports She did believe, however, that it appeared that most of the environmental factors/concerns would be mitigated Commissioner Alberio believed that the project would impact the neighborhood with increased traffic, noise, and the long hours of operation He did not feel he could approve it Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adopt P.C. Resolution Nos. 95-37 and 95-38 approving the project, with amended conditions of approval, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Director/Secretary Bernard suggested that the conditions of approval be listed He said that Taco Bell had agreed to keep the building height as low as possible Acting Chair Hayes suggested an automatic six-month review of the project. Director/Secretary Bernard continued that all wood and stucco on the existing wall would be replaced Acting Chair Hayes believed that graffiti should be removed on the day it was discovered. Director/Secretary Bernard confirmed that Taco Bell would be requested to clean up vandalism within 24 hours, that the surrounding wall would be at least 6' high -- to be determined by the Director, and that the amount of the bond for the $34,000 to possibly lengthen the left turn pocket be divided equally between Taco Bell and Christ Lutheran Church if both projects were built, or a fair share returned if appropriate Acting Chair Hayes added the fact that the City's Public works Department would investigate the possibility of a U-turn being allowed at Toscanini PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 9 The motion passed (3-2) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Vannorsdall, Whiteneck and Acting Chair Hayes ABSTENTIONS: None Acting Chair Hayes stated that there was a 15 -day appeal period for the decision to be appealed to the City Council RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 7 48 P M. and reconvened at 7 55 P M (Items No 6 and 7 were heard out of order) PUBLIC HEARINGS 8 VARIANCE NO. 401 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1842, Mr and Mrs Vincent Carbone, 29733 Knollview. (FF) Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he met with the applicant's architect at the site. Acting Chair Hayes added that she had visited the site at the same time but it was merely a coincidence that she and Commissioner Vannorsdall were there at the same time. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating that Staff recommended approval of the project because it felt that findings could be met. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the site's geological conditions Assistant Planner de Freitas said that it was not typical that such a report would be submitted to the Planning Staff and prior to building review, but that the City's geologist had reviewed the applicant's report and concurred with most of the conclusions, although there were minor details to be worked out Commissioner Albeno said that he had talked to the applicant's architect, Mr Ray Medak, and had visited the site, noting that the house was in disrepair He wondered if there was asbestos in the house PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 10 Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that an inspection prior to a Building Permit being issued would determine this and added that the house would be required to comply with today's standards Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (5-0) Mr. Ray Medak (applicant's architect), 150 West Sixth Street, #210, San Pedro, CA 90731 Mr Medak indicated that the slope needed to be stabilized before construction could begin He said that the applicant was requesting the following three things 1) to cantilever the side of the structure, rotating the home closer to the driveway, lowering the foundation, 2) to make the deck wider with a slight cantilever to be hidden by vegetation (drainage will be properly handled) and, 3) place a wedge in the corner at the rear of the house Mr Medak said that the roof of the second story would be no higher than any other part of the existing house and there would be no view impairment for any of the neighbors. Commissioner Alberio asked if a mirror could be added for traffic safety at the driveway opposite this property Mr Medak said that this would be acceptable to the applicant but he was not sure about the neighbors. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the kind of rock into which the placement of the caissons would be placed Mr. Medak replied that it was true bedrock Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if 10' would be deep enough Commissioner Albeno said that the engineer would make that decision Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how deep the sewer line was under the driveway Mr Medak said that a 10' easement was shown on the county map and that the storm drain ended at the end of the driveway. Commissioner Vannorsdall said that he was concerned about making a reasonable slope for the driveway, particularly with five children in the family He suggested that, if the existing sewer drain was needed, a trench could be cut down through the center of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 11 0 6 the driveway. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the proposed retaining wall met the City's height requirements Director/Secretary Bernard said the maximum normally allowed was 3', and, Assistant Planner de Freitas said that 5' was allowed adjacent to a driveway. Director/Secretary Bernard clarified that visibility was also a factor to be considered (in setting the wall's height) Assistant Planner de Freitas said that plans for a retaining wall had not yet been presented to Staff; so these requirements had not been reviewed He said that information could be brought back to the Commission if so desired Acting Chair suggested that another option was to leave the wall to the Director's discretion. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant and Staff could work out the details of the wall for review and approval by the Director. Vince and Jo Ann Carbone (applicants), 1207 Mt. Rainier Road, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr and Mrs Carbone explained that they had bought the property in May 1995, planning cleanup in the interior and exterior, and extend the entry slightly When they learned any change would require a geology report, they then decided to spend additional money to reinforce and expand the house. Commissioner Vannorsdall reiterated that safety was most important and requested that the applicant reduce the slope and steps Mrs Carbone agreed, stating that she and her husband realized immediately that the driveway, in particular, needed to be safe. She added that the driveway across the street had a mirror to improve visibility and it was helpful Commissioner Alberto asked if they would agree to make the driveway wider. Mr and Mrs Carbone that they would. Mr Joe Good, 29756 Knoll View Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Good said that he and his wife Dorothy lived across the street from the subject property and that they were delighted the subject property was being improved because it had been an eyesore in the neighborhood PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1985 PAGE 12 0 9 Commissioner Whiteneck moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Aiberio. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Alberio moved to adopt the Staff recommendation and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 95-39, as modified on driveway issue, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. The motion passed, (5-0), by roll call vote: Acting Chair Hayes stated that there was a 15 -day appeal period to appeal the decision to the City Council CONTINUED BUSINESS 9 VARIANCE NO 402, Jerry and Sandy Mulliner, 102 Spindrift Drive (FF) Acting Chair Hayes commented on the issue of ethics which had been raised regarding this particular application in connection with a former Commissioner She asked the members of the Commission if they had been influenced by any other Commissioner, City Council member, resident, or any other person If they had and did not feel they could vote fairly, she asked that any Commissioner to whom this might apply recuse himself or herself from hearing the item There was no response from the Commission Director/Secretary Bernard noted that there had been another late letter for this item received after the meeting commenced, as well as two other pieces of late correspondence mentioned earlier Assistant Planner de Freitas indicated that an adjacent neighbor, the Nesbitt family was opposed to the project but that an agreement had been signed between that particular neighbor and the Mulliners He said that another neighbor across the street from the subject property had written a letter in support of the project Assistant Planner de Freitas then presented the Staff Report, indicating that Staff was recommending approval because all grading and geological information was in order and that all findings for the Variance could be made, in light of the fact of the unusual conditions in this particular area of the City It was determined that there should be no significant impact on adjacent properties and that the project was consistent with the General Plan Commissioner Albeno asked Staff to elaborate on the fact that the City Council had determined that a holding tank was not required PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 13 Assistant Planner de Freitas indicated that he did not have all the details with him but explained that the project originally did require a holding tank but the city Council determined at its October 3, 1995 meeting that this requirement was not necessary because it would be an expensive burden to the property owner (because of the frequent emptying/servicing due to the small size of the lot) and that the square footage was reduced to comply to Code. Commissioner Albeno asked if the number of plumbing fixtures was a factor Director/Secretary Bernard said that this was not a factor The City Council approved the project without a holding tank based on the fact that no new plumbing fixtures were being added and that the project was scaled down to an acceptable size so that a holding tank was not required. Commissioner Alberio referred to Moratorium Ordinance No 309, and said he understood there would be no hold harmless clause requested. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that this was correct Director/Secretary Bernard added that a standard condition of approval was that, if a sewer line was eventually installed, the property owner would be required to connect to it Assistant Planner de Freitas confirmed that all standard mitigation measures for a Landslide Moratorium Permit were in place except for the requirement for a holding tank Acting Chair Hayes stated that one neighbor had submitted a letter opposing the zero setbacks on the south side of this proposed project However, she did remember it was common to allow a reduction in all four side setbacks in this particular part of the City because of the extremely small lots Commissioner Alberio asked the location of the zero setback Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that it was on the south side of the property Director/Secretary Bernard reported that there was a vacant lot on that side Commissioner Alberio asked if development would be permitted on that vacant lot PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 14 Director/Secretary Bernard indicated that the City Council had taken this into consideration and that (new) development would not be allowed given the language of the current (and proposed) Municipal Code Commissioner asked if the owner of the vacant lot had been contacted Assistant Planner de Freitas said that the owner of the vacant lot had been notified of the proposed setback as had all landowners within the Code required distance He added that the existing house on the Mulliners' property had encroached onto Mr Nesbitt's land and that they wished to correct this and build the new home completely on their lot, including any overhangs, etc. Acting Chair Hayes asked if a new geology report would be needed. Assistant Planner indicated that a new report would not be required as the footprint for the new home was smaller. Director/Secretary Bernard added that a geology report had been renewed in 1994 and was reviewed/approved at that time by the City's geologist and, that the City's geotechnical consultant, upon consultation, indicated new investigation was unnecessary. Commissioner Alberio asked if the old foundation was being retained Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that it was not Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (5-0). Mr. Jerry Mulliner (applicant), 102 Spindrift Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Mulliner urged the Commission to approve the project as there had been no increase in the footprint from the originally designed and approved plans Mrs Sandi Mulliner (applicant), 102 Spindrift, Rancho Palos Verdes Mrs. Mulliner reported that she and her husband had been working on this project for two years and she could not imagine that there could be any opposition She reiterated that they were going to correct the fact that the old house had been built slightly over their property line onto a neighbor's lot. She indicated that it had been a financial burden to them to live in an apartment while seeking approval to build their new home Mrs Mulliner said that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 15 0 6 they had received written approval from many of the nearby residents and did not want to offend any of their neighbors Mr. Mike Davis (applicant's builder), 1516 Carver Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. Mr Davis reported that he felt they had designed to project to comply with the Code as much as possible, with a Variance being requested for deviations which were necessary He stated that he was available for questions. Ms. Virginia Bacon, 4111 Sea Horse Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes Ms Bacon offered her support for the protect and hoped it would be approved with no more delay so that the Mulliners could build their home as soon as possible Ms June Dunbar, 83 Spindrift Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Dunbar informed the Commission that she had lived in her home near the subject property for 34 1/2 years, stating that the homes in this area were originally built as beach cottages for people living elsewhere lived elsewhere but that the community had evolved into one of permanent residents She indicated that this area had been previously developed with very little concern from the County regarding regulations, including adequate setbacks She said that she understood about the problem with requiring the holding tank because the small size of the lot would require that it be emptied weekly at an estimated cost of $125 because a large truck could not access the area She concluded that she preferred to have a home on this lot, rather than as vacant property Ms. Babe du Pont, 3 Clipper Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms du Pont informed the Commission that she had been the listing real estate agent for this property and that, although she had known they would be building a new home on the lot, she believed that it was an acceptable project Mr Richard Constable, 85 Yacht Harbor Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Constable voiced his approval for the project and felt that Mr and Mrs Mulllner had tried very hard to conform to the City's requirements. Ms. Sally Marone, 101 Spindrift Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms Marone indicated that she owned the land directly behind the subject property and asked if the Commission had received the letter she mailed to Paul Bussey, the City Manager, on September 12, 1995 Assistant Planner replied that Staff had not received it and thereby had not forwarded it to the Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 16 Commissioner Alberio asked Ms Marone to summarize the content of her letter to Mr Bussey Ms Marone stated that her concern that the new home would be close to her property line and higher than the previous structure Commissioner Albeno asked if view impairment was an Issue Ms. Marone said that it was and she asked if a silhouette would be erected to Indicate the size and height of the home. Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that a silhouette was not required for Variance applications Director/Secretary Bernard expanded, stating that, as long as the maximum height of 16' was not exceeded, a silhouette was not required, and added that the new home would be no higher and no closer to Ms Marone's property line than the previous house. Mr John McCarthy (President, Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association), 105 Spindrift Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr McCarthy indicated that it had been very difficult to keep abreast of the activities on the subject property because so many changes had been made He detailed the history of the project as he perceived it and expressed his confusion He was primarily concerned about the location of the new home on the lot in reference to the proximity to Ms. Marone's property line in the rear and the zero sideyard setbacks. He mentioned that there were CC&R's with which to comply Commissioner Alberio replied that CC&R requirements were different than the City's Code requirements and that an area's art jury or architectural committee would need to provide its own approval if that was a requirement Mr McCarthy indicated that no approval had been given by the Association Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that each of Mr McCarthy's specific concerns be addressed Mr McCarthy reiterated that the main concern was the rear setback and the retaining wall at that property line and geological concerns in this regard PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1595 PAGE 17 C Ll Acting Chair Hayes suggested that Assistant Planner de Freitas review the geological study Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the project and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 9540, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. The motion passed, (5-0), on a roll call vote. Acting Chair Hayes stated that there was a 15 -day appeal period to appeal the decision to the City Council CONTINUED BUSINESS (item No 6 was heard out of order) 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 116 - REVISION "A". GRADING PERMIT NO. 1781, VARIANCE NO 389 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 671; Christ Lutheran Church, 28850 South Western Avenue (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report, stating that some conditions had been changed She said Condition No 26 had changed the requested monitoring period from 18 months to five years (consistent with the Taco Bell conditions), and Condition No. 24 changed the percentage of the cost for the bond to 100% (as consistent with Taco Bell) Mr Tom Blair (applicant's architect), 2785 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, CA 90505. Mr. Blair said that all conditions were acceptable and that, in reference to the bond cost, he would accept the condition because he believed that, if only the church project were built, the lengthening of the left turn pocket would not be necessary Mr. Jim. Bieaa (City's Traffic Consultant), Willdan Associates, 374 Poli Street, Ventura, CA 93001 Mr Biega indicated that he was present to answer questions There were no questions Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the project and adopt P.C. Resolutions No. 95-41, 95-42, and 95-43, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 18 i 0 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein confirmed that the percentage of the bond to be paid by each applicant was to be changed, as had been discussed Acting Chair indicated that this was correct and the maker and the seconder agreed to this change The motion was approved, with this amendment, (5-0), on a roll call vote. Acting Chair Hayes stated that there was a 15 -day appeal period to appeal the decision to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Item No. 7 was heard out of order) 7. VARIANCE NO 390, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1802; Mr Tom Villardi, 5832 Scottwood Drive (TS) Director/Secretary Bernard stated that Staff recommended Continuance of this item to `the Planning Commission's next regular meeting on November 14, 1995 Commissioner Ferraro moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (5-0). There were no speakers for this item Commissioner Ferraro moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Ferraro moved to accept Staffs recommendation and continue the item to November 14, 1995. Approved, (5-0). (Items No 8 and 9 were heard out of order, earlier in the meeting) NEW BUSINESS: 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 23 - REVISION '77', Mr John Fransen, 32404 Aqua Vista Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report, stating that Staff believed the two-story residence was compatible in size and design with the other homes in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 19 i neighborhood and the single family residence was in keeping with the original intent of this parcel Because all other requirements were being met, Staff had approved the grading application (contingent upon approval of the CUP revision) and recommended that the Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No 23 - Revision "ZZ". Commissioner Ferraro recused herself from hearing this item as she lives near the subject property Acting Chair Hayes said that she had spoken with three neighbors while visiting the site and two of whom believed that their view would be impaired She asked if Staff had conducted a view analysis Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that she did visa the site, sat in those homes and took photographs from both the outside and the inside. She provided the Commission with a photo board. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he did not feel there was significant view blockage Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that the Height Variation was approved at a Staff level and the neighbors were told they could appeal -- but they did not. She added that the modification of the original footprint for the development of this particular lot was the only issue before the Commission Acting Chair asked if that meant the view issue was out of the purview of the Commission Assistant Planner Klopfenstein that this was correct unless the decision had been appealed. Director/Secretary Bernard clarified that, although there was no appeal, the Commissioners could make changes if they so wished Mr. John Fransen applicant), 444 First Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266. Mr Fransen indicated that he was comfortable with the Staff Report and the conditions of approval. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Mr Fransen had met his new neighbors. Mr Fransen said that he had and that they had no apparent objection to the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 20 Commissioner Alberio explained that the new home would be reviewed on it its own merit and that fact that there was no appeal would not be significant. Mr. Gary Lane (applicant's designer/contractor), Lane Building Design, 1444 Aviation Boulevard, Suite #200, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Mr Lane reported that he had worked with Staff to formulate an acceptable plan and that he was satisfied with the conditions of approval Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, by Minute Order, (5-0), on a roll call vote. Acting Chair Hayes stated that there was a 15 -day appeal period in which to appeal the decision to the City Council Commissioner Ferraro returned to the dais 11 REPORT ON MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 477, Mr Souheill Habbal, 30063 Cartier Drive (KK) In response to the Commission's request for an update on the above project, Assistant Planner Klopfenstein reported that on June 14, 1995, the Planning Commission denied an Encroachment Permit for a wrought iron fence in the public right-of-way The applicants re -located the fence and applied for a Minor Exception Permit. Staff verified that the applicant had moved the 6' high fence behind the right-of-way within the 20' setback and obtained a final building permit. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 9 28 P M and reconvened at 9 35 P M CONTINUED BUSINESS (Item No 4 was heard out of order) 4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS), City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide (JR) Acting Chair Hayes said that she felt she had not had adequate time to review the last revisions provided to the Commission and she asked the opinion of the other members of the Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 21 The other Commissioners agreed and a discussion ensued as to whether or not a special meeting should be held, possibly right after the election, since three Commissions were running for City Council and their time was limited prior to the election Director/Secretary Bernard noted that if all three Commissioners were elected to the Council, those Commissioners would be resigning from the Commission and, as a result, would not be able to vote on the Development Code after the election. Therefore, he recommended that the Commission hear remaining the Development Code revisions at its regular meeting on November 14, 1995, adopting a resolution that evening to forward the chapters already approved by the Planning Commission to the City council Commissioner Alberio moved to continue this item to the next meeting on November 14, 1995 and forward the chapters previously approved by The Planning Commission to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Lois Larue indicated that she had reviewed the revisions provided that evening for final review by the Commission and found them very confusing to read Acting Chair Hayes explained the system of underline, double underline, strikeout, and redline that had been used throughout the last two years of review so that it was possible to see what had been added or deleted in 1991/1992 and in 1994/1995 Lois Larue said that she had many comments regarding the chapters for review at that night's meeting and that she was not being given adequate time Acting Chair Hayes replied that comments on the specific chapters before the Commission at this time could be presented on November 14 Director/Secretary Bernard emphasized that the Planning Commission and Planning Commission Subcommittee had been reviewing the Development Code for nearly two years and that there had been much opportunity for public input during this period Mrs. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mrs Kelly informed the Commission that she had lived in the City since 1974 and had long been a strong supporter of the General Plan which was adopted when the City was formed. She made it clear that the citizens would accept no Development Code which did not meet the criteria of the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 22 n C Senior Planner listed the Chapters reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission to be forwarded to the City Council All of Title 16, except 16.04, 16.16, 16 20, 16 24 and 16 32 The following Chapters of Title 17: 17.06, 17.08, 17.10, 17.14, 17.16, 17.18, 17.20, 17.22, 17.26, 17 28, 17 32, 17.34, 17.38, 17.42, 17.44, and 17.58. The motion passed, (5-0), on a roll call vote. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Staff 12. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 14, 1095 Commission Acting Chair Hayes, in reference to a call she had received from an outside source, requested that the possibility of placing the Planning Commission Minutes on the Internet (at no cost to the City) be discussed at a future meeting Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the City Council would not need to make the final decision Director/Secretary Bernard responded that this was correct He agreed to have Staff investigate this suggestion and provide a report to the Planning Commission, although not necessarily at the next meeting The consensus of the Commission that providing this Information would be merely an extension of the current procedure of providing access of the Minutes to the public COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Mrs. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Kelly stated that she would be recommending to the City Council at their next meeting on November 8, 1995 that Mr Mowlds be reinstated as Chairman of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 23 Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Lois Larue suggested that materials furnished for the public at the Planning Commission meetings be arranged differently, that more copies of the agendas and "Request to Speak" forms be provided, and that the audience chairs be moved forward so that there would be additional seating when there was a large number of people in the audience She also concurred with Mrs Kelly's statement regarding Mr Mowlds Director/Secretary Bernard indicated that he would see to it that Ms Larue's two suggestions regarding the meetings of the Planning Commission would be acted upon and that he appreciated the input ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:57 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on November 14, 1995 (M UMMIN 12WIN10 24) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 1995 PAGE 24