Loading...
PC MINS 19951114APPROVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 6,59 P M by Acting Chair Hayes at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Planning Commissioner Gilbert Alberio PRESENT Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck, Wang, and Acting Chair Hayes ABSENT None Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rous, Assistant Planner Silverman, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi Acting Chair Hayes suggested that Item No 2 (Proposed Amendments to Title 16 & 17 of the City's Municipal Code) be discussed at the end of the meeting after Item No. 8. Approved, (6-0). C+ITi7►� ►TT'►�I�PiTCfT:��[fP►Iti� Commission Commissioner Ferraro expressed her gratitude to the Commission and Staff for their efforts while she was a member of the Planning Commission. Ms Ferraro then resigned from the Commission to begin her term on the City Council Chairman Hayes distributed a letter the Commission regarding Neighborhood Alert. Staff Planning Administrator Petru stated that there was a memorandum to the Commission members from Director/Secretary Bernard commending them for their hard work and dedication on the Development Code Revisions. There was also a memorandum regarding item No. 2 from Commissioner Vannorsdall and a letter from Beverly Allen for Item No 5. Ms Petru announced a reminder from the City Clerk that applications were being accepted for re -appoint to the Planning Commission until November 20, 1995, but that the deadline would probably be extended APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 1995 Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that, on Page 16, Line 2 of paragraph 8 the word "too" should be corrected to "to", Line 1 of Paragraph 9 the name "Vannorsdall" should be inserted to read "Commissioner Vannorsdall moved", Page 25, Line 1 of Paragraph 4 "Chairman Alberio" should be corrected to "Commissioner Albeno"; and, on Page 28, Line 2 of Paragraph 12 the word "fro" should be corrected to "from" Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept the Minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3 VARIANCE NO. 392 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1819: Arthur Fein, 27520 Elmbridge Drive (DJ) The were no requests to speak to this item from the public Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue this item to December 12, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved ,(5-0). 4 HEIGHT VARIATION 815 -Appeal. Damino and Sarah Colaroutolo, 4033 Miraleste Drive. (KK) Planning Administrator Petru presented the Staff Report and stated that this item was continued from the October 24, 1995 meeting, at which time the Commission directed the applicant and architect to work with the Staff in redesigning the project and to address the concerns of the Commission regarding the height and the mass of the structure Ms Petru stated that the revised project would exceed the setback and open space requirements for the lot, and that the project would not create a significant view impairment from the surrounding properties In response to the Commissions direction, the applicant and architect had decreased the ridge line of the structure by 1- 1/2 feet, reduced the square footage of the structure by 42 square feet (by reducing 1 foot from the rear elevation and proposed landscaping to soften the visual impact of the residence as seen from the street) Staff felt that the small reduction in building the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 2 footprint was not adequate to adjust the scale of the structure to be compatible with the surrounding area Therefore, Staff was seeking direction from the Commission regarding the adequacy of this design in terms of neighborhood compatibility Mr John Vilicich, (project architect) 953 1st Street, San Pedro, CA, 90732 Mr. Vilicich stated that he spoke with Assistant Planner Klopfenstem and then made the following changes to the project reduced height as well as square footage to the structure , increased the rear yard setback to 24 feet 4 inches, and submitted a landscaping plan Mr Villicich also stated that Assistant Planner Klopfenstein only requested that he reduce the size of the staircase and not the square footage of the structure Commissioner Alberio stated he recalled from the last meeting that the architect and Staff would work together to reduce the bulk of the structure, which may include reducing the square footage of the home Mr Vilicich indicated that he had reduced the ridge line by 1-1/2 feet and removed 1 foot from the rear elevation of the building Commissioner Albeno asked Mr Vilicich if he had worked with the Staff and agreed on the structure modifications Mr Vilicich replied that he did as Staff had requested Commissioner Vannorsdall stated for the record that he was not present at the September 26, 1995 meeting, but had read the Staff Report and Minutes for this item John Resich. (applicant's representative) 840 W. 9th Street, San Pedro, CA, 90732 Mr Resich presented photographs of the property to the Commission and explained that the applicant was building a structure on a small lot located at Miraleste Drive. He stated that the square footage of the lower level complies with the open space and setback requirements set forth in the Development Code Mr Resich and the applicant met with Staff to redesign the size and square footage of the structure, lower the height of the ridge line and to soften the front facade with landscaping. Mr Resich stated that the homes in this area are predominately 2 -story, like the proposed project He explained that, if the applicant reduced the square footage, it would be a substandard home in a nice area, which would detract from the quality of the area as well as reduce the value of all the other homes. Mr Resich emphasized that the applicant was building a livable house and meeting the Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14,1995 PAGE 3 0 directives in reducing the size and increasing the rear yard setback Mr Resich concluded by stating that the redesigned structure was compatible with the other homes in the area Bill Ruth, 4045 Miralaste Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Mr Ruth stated that he strongly opposed the proposed development at 4033 Miraleste Drive. He presented aerial photographs of the area to the Commission with the percentage of house size to land ratio for the 13 homes on the block. He stated the high was 38% and the low was 14%, with an average ratio at 24% Mr. Ruth stated that the lot in question was proposing a 62% ratio, which was not compatible with the neighborhood He stated that large houses on small lots were an eye sore and would devalue this property in question, but also the other surrounding properties. He felt that landscaping should not be used to hide the exterior of the home, but rather to compliment it He stated that all the rules and regulations were in place long before the purchase of the property He felt that the new landowner was not entitled to build an average -sized house on a substandard -sized lot and stated that he did not want his property value to decline. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Ruth to confirm that he came up with a figure of 62% for the house square footage to lot size ratio Mr Ruth replied, yes Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that this figure was inconsistent with the Staff Report and asked Planning Administrator Petru for information regarding the ratio. Planning Administrator Petru stated on page 4 of Staff Report, Staff had calculated the ratio to be 61 %, which was very close to Mr. Ruth's result Mr Ruth stated that the project would be double the ratio currently found in the neighborhood. Acting Chair Hayes stated that the basic problem was the small lot size John Resich (in rebuttal) stated that the property in question was a vacant lot and had been an eye sore in the community for years The applicant has setback the home from the side and rear property lines more that the minimum Code requirement. Mr. Resich indicated on the plans that the architect and applicant have done the best they could to position the windows on both sides of the house so they do not look down at the neighbor's property. He stated that Miraleste Drive was an unusual and unique place and that it was not the typical RPV community, and that the whole Miraleste PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 4 area should be looked at in totality Some homes are very large, others are close to the street, while some have large setbacks The square footage of the 1st floor of this structure is less that 2,700 and was not large for the lot Mr Resich did not feel that Mr Ruth's analysis was valid or appropriate and stated that this structure meets the design requirements, sits well on the lot and blends into the area Acting Chair Hayes stated that she would like to see more back yard area and was in favor of a larger setback She asked Mr. Resich if more could be done? Mr Resich said that they could probably do a little more with the rear yard setback, but not much to the front yard setback. The applicant may be willing to cut one more foot off of the back of the residence if the Planning Department and Commission requested it, but did not think that it would make a significant difference. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that one of the things that bothered him about the project was the lack of articulation of the structure along the side elevations. Commissioner Alberio stated that he felt the bulkiness came from the appearance of the front facade of the structure He agreed with Vice Chair Hayes' opinion of the undesirability of large structure built on a small lot. Commissioner Albeno stated that he would like to see more reduction of the building footprint and felt that it could be reduced more than 42 square feet He wanted the architect to compromise with the Staff. Mr. Vilicich replied, that after meeting with the Staff, he assumed that he would not be required to make further reductions in the square footage of the structure. If that were so, he would have to take out living space, which would result in a very small house, which would not be compatible with the living standards of the community. When the applicant purchased the lot, they asked members of the Planning Department about the Code requirements, and designed the project to meet those requirements. Mr. Resich stated that the applicant has a family and requires a certain number of bedrooms The structure has 3 bedrooms, a living room, a dining room, a family room, several bathrooms, and a kitchen. He understood the Commission's opinions regarding the front facade articulation. Mr. Rusich stated that the front view of the structure would be well articulated and that it was the only part of the structure that the public will ever see The architect had made numerous attempts to come up with a plan that the Palos Verdes Art Jury would approve Mr Resich stated that the applicant and architect have tried to work with Staff and meet the Code requirements. But, if the Commission was requesting a larger reduction, it would not meet the applicant's needs PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1895 PAGE 5 Commissioner Vannorsdall asked the applicant and architect if the structure was 3,721 square feet in size, without the garage Mr Villicich replied that the first floor living area was 2,223 square feet and the second floor was 1,430 square feet in size Mr. Mike Whitlock: 6508 Via Lorenzo, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Whitlock stated that he opposed the project and that this house was not compatible for the neighborhood because of its height and bulkiness He clarified that he lives one block away from the subject property and that it was visible from his home. Mr. Whitlock suggested that the applicant could provide additional landscaping to hide the volume of the home Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he felt the house was too large for the lot and that more reduction in the square footage of the residence was necessary. Commissioner Wang suggested that Staff, the applicant, and the architect meet and work out a compromise. Commissioner Whiteneck stated that the house was a little over size for the area and suggested that the architect and owner redesign the house. Commissioner Alberio agreed with the Commissioners regarding the height and bulk of the house and that reduction should be done Acting Chair Hayes stated that the Commission has agreed upon the need to reduce the size of the home. She asked the Commission if the architect and applicant should target for a certain percentage reduction, or have them work out their best alternative with the Staff. Commissioner Albeno stated that architect and applicant should get together with the Staff to compromise. Acting Chair Hayes suggested that the public hearing should be re -opened and continued. Commissioner Alberio moved to re -open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 6 Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that the Commission should give the Staff a specific guideline to work towards Acting Chair Hayes agreed Commissioner Albeno asked that Staff consider these issues when meeting with the applicant and architect: privacy, height, and rear yard setback Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that the Commission should ask the applicant and architect if they would be willing to compromise with Staff. Mr. Resich stated that the applicant and architect would be willing to work with the Staff, but stated that a large reduction in square footage of the structure would not be practical, and that the height could not be decreased any futher Acting Chair Hayes agreed with Mr. Resich regarding the height issue and stated that she was primarily concerned with a reduction of square footage of the residence Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that the applicant and architect submit revised drawings to the Commission The Commission directed Staff to work with the applicant to reduce the overall square footage and lot coverage, of the project, increase the rear yard setback, and maintain privacy with the adjacent properties Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the public hearing and re -open to continue to December 12, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5 VARIANCE NO. 390. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1802. Mr. Torre-ITillardi, 5832 Scotwood Drive Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (5-0). Assistant Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report and stated that this hearing was originally scheduled for October 24, 1995, but some additional improvements on the property were discovered during a site visit that were not included on the Variance application. The applicant was requesting approval for after -the -fact grading of 120 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 7 cubic yards and the installation of retaining walls with a combined height of 7 feet The Variance application was also required to allow pool equipment, a trellis, and a play structure to be located on the level area that had previously been an extreme slope, construction of a fence in excess of 6 feet; and, a koi pond in the front yard setback area Assistant Planner Silverman stated that Staff recommended approval of the Grading Permit for the retaining walls and approval of the Variance application for the trellis, play equipment, and the koi pond, but recommended denial for the over height fencing and the pool equipment, since alternatives were available to accommodate these improvements in other areas of the lot which would not require a Variance Assistant Planner Silverman stated that a letter was received from the adjacent property owners stating objection to the project, but after speaking with the neighbor, Staff indicated that they preferred to keep the side yard fencing in its current configuration to keep the applicant's dogs out of their yard Mr. Tom Villardi, (applicant/landowner) 5832 Scotwood Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Villardi stated that there was no slope in the rear yard when he purchased the property in 1994. He said that the pool equipment used to be located in the side yard, but was now relocated to another area where the noise was limited. Mr. Villardi stated that the side fencing is necessary because he and his neighbor are dog owners , and that the construction of the koi pond in the front yard would accent the decor of his home Mr. Villardi also stated that he had been told by a Staff member that he was in violation of Code because of the location of the pool equipment. He had received unfriendly letters from the City regarding this situation and felt that the City had been harassing him Acting Chair Hayes stated that the letters which Mr Villardi received for Code violations was a separate issue and that the only applications that were before the Commission should be discussed. Commissioner Wang asked Mr Villardi if his neighbor had complained about the noise before he moved the pool equipment Mr Villardi replied that he rarely sees his neighbor so he did not know what he thought about the matter, but that the noise of the pool equipment in the previous location could be heard from a considerable distance. Mr Robert Allen; 5822 Scotwood Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Mr Allen stated that he and his mother initially opposed the proposed requests, because several fences were built on different occasions without notification to them and resulted in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14,1996 PAGE 8 f damage to their property, which they had to repair themselves However, since the work was completed, they would rather leave it in place, than have their property torn up again 1 Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-0) Moved by Commissioner Vannorsdall and seconded by Acting Chair Hayes to approve the project, as -built, with conditions of approval. The motion passed (4-1-) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, and Acting Chair Hayes NOES: Commissioner Alberio ABSTENTIONS: None Planning Administrator Petru stated that since the Commission had approved the Variance and the Grading permit, the draft resolution would be modified and presented at December 12, 1995 meeting for final adoption The appeal period would run from that date RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 7 55 P M and reconvened at 8 10 P. M NEW BUSINESS 6 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1711 -REVISION: Mr Robert Foster, 6100 Via Subida. Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report and stated that the new owners of the property have submitted revised plans which called for the construction of a new home that would be 1,400 square feet smaller than the originally approved home. The redesigned home required 1,900 cubic yards of additional grading to complete the project, which would result in 5,430 cubic yards less grading than was approved previously No revision to the previous Conditional Use Permit would be required since the second unit would not be modified The Miscellaneous Hearing was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14,1995 PAGE 9 requested for revisions to the cupolas on the roof; which had been reduced to 4 square feet in area Staff is recommended approval of the project, with conditions of approval Commissioner Alberio stated that the main issue was the down sizing of the project. Acting Chair Hayes agreed with Commissioner Alberio and added that the trees were not in the issue at this particular hearing. The Commission was only concerned with the revisions to the approved Grading Permit. Any additional issues regarding trees and views on the property should be dealt with by the View Restoration Commission Mark House: (applicant's representative) 4720 Everts Street, San Diego, CA, 92109 Mr. House presented the previous and revised project plans to the Commission The revised pians included a reduction of grading by 1,900 cubic yards. Mr House also stated that his client was requesting approval for several cupolas, which would be 4 square feet in size and would improve the character to the home Mr. Robert Foster: (applicant) 3023 Crownview Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Foster stated that he and his wife's main concern was to maintain the natural beauty of their property. Mr. Angus Lorenzen: 15 Diamonte Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Lorenzen stated he was not against the project, and was pleased that the new owner was complying with the conditions of the Planning Commission However, his main concern was that the trees on the north side of the property were blocking his view and he wanted them removed. Acting Chair Hayes responded that the trees were not in the issue in this particular hearing and the existing conditions had been previously worked out after extensive review by Staff and long meetings before the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Commission was only concerned with the revisions to the approved Grading Permit. If Mr Lorenzen wished to have other trees on the property removed, he would need to file an applicantion with the View Restoration Commission once it has been re -activated following a lawsuit Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the Staff recommendation, seconded by Acting Chair Hayes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 10 The motion passed (5-0) on the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Alberio, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, and Acting Chair Hayes NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None Planning Administrator Petru stated that there was a 15 day appeal period from that evening's hearing during which time this project could be appealed to City Council 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 183 - Clarification. Palos Verdes Art Center (FF) There were no speakers for this item The Staff Report was presented by Planning Administrator Petru. She indicated that, although the Commission had previously approved the lights in the parking lot to be a maximum height of 28 feet, the light standards that were actually installed measured to about 30 feet in height Staff found that the additional two feet in height made no difference in impacts to the adjacent property and recommended approval of the project, as built. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve Stafrs recommendation to modify Condition No. I of P.C. Resolution 95-10, to allow 30 foot height light standards, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (5-0). 8 INTERPRETATION POLICY FOR RETAIL AND NON -RETAIL USEE-00, Specific Plans I. 11. and 111, (JR) Planning Administrator offered to have Senior Planner Rojas present the Staff Report on this item.. Acting Chair Hayes stated that it was not necessary Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve Staffs recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (5-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 11 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION). City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide (JR) Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that, on Page U, the Director has the authority to approve or deny a chimney In his opinion, chimneys should be required to be 1 to 2 feet over the ridge height in order to properly work Senior Planner Rous responded that the paragraph in question allows certain structures or appurtenances to be extended over the 16 foot height limit Chimneys should be allowed to extend over the ridge line because of the Building Code requirement. The language in this paragraph allows chimneys to exceed the ridge line with approval from the Director. The intent was to balance the need for safety with the need to minimize view impairment. Commissioner Vannorsdall inquired on Pages W, X, Y, and Z pages if the diagrams were sent through the Traffic Department Senior Planner Rojas responded that they were not sent on to the Traffic Committee, but they were given to him by former Commissioner Nick Mowlds Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he did not receive a copy of 17 60 120 noted on Page 8 of the Staff Report Senior Planner responded, that this was a typographical error on Page 8 and should read 17 60 100 Commissioner Vannorsdall inquired, on Page 46, regarding the requirement for an applicant to provide a plot plan is a topographic map is not required.. Senior Planner Rojas stated that Staff uses the term "plot plan" and "site plan" interchangeably. On page 26 it requires a topographic map for the plot/site plan Commissioner Vannorsdall stated, on Page 71, the " X" should be followed by the word "foot" and not "feet" He also suggested that the word "plexiglass" should be inserted after wire mesh in the sentence where it reads, " The fence above the 6 foot height limit shall be constructed of wire mesh, since wire mesh and plexiglass are similar materials. Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested on Page 183 that the definition of caisson foundation should include a reference to "bedrock" and not "earth". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 12 Senior Planner Rojas suggested that the word "stable compacted soil condition should be used instead of earth. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated on Page 187 regarding the paved driveways, that there are different kinds of driveways (i a gravel, etc ) and that this should be clarified in the paragraph Senior Planner Rojas responded that Staff specifically wanted to use the word "paved", since the City did not want to allow gravel or other types of non -paved driveways as the only means of access to a site. The Commission agreed Commissioner Vannorsdall inquired, on Page 189, regarding whether temporary fences and walls should be differentiated from permanent fences and walls. Senior Planner Rojas responded that a definition of "fence" and "wall' was included in the Definitions Chapter, as well as two definitions of fences, temporary and permanent Commissioner Whiteneck inquired, on Page 8, regarding the parking space requirements. The proposed Code requires six spaces for each hole for golf, plus the established parking requirement for all other uses less than 25% Planning Administrator Petru responded that this applies to the club house and its banquet facilities The calculation would be figured at the size of the club house and space needed, then reduced by 25%. Acting Chair Hayes stated, on Page U , that certain appeals of Staff decisions should not stop at the Planning Commission, but should be appealable to the City Council. O Senior Planner Rojas responded that this issue of stopping appeals at the Planning Commission was forwarded from the previous Revisions conceptually approved by the City Council in 1991, but that the Council has already stated that they felt that every decision should be appealable to them. Planning Administrator Petru recommended that the Commission adopt P.C. Resolution 95-45 and submit to City Council for approval of the remaining proposed amendments to Title 16 & 17 Commissioner Whiteneck moved to approve Staffs recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14,1995 PAGE 13 �r � ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS. Staff 9. Pre -Agenda for the next regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, December 12, 1995. Planning Administrator Petru suggested that since there are no public hearings or new business items for the November 28, 1995 meeting, the Commission may want to cancel the meeting. The Commission agreed Approved, (5-0) Commission COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items)- - LNEel 211 .i [oil] Z4 Acting Chair Hayes adjourned the meeting at 9:35 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on December 12, 1995. M \USERS\NELLIEA\WPWIN60\1114 MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 114,1995 PAGE 14