Loading...
PC MINS 19960611_ Approved 8/13/96 QD CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 00 P M by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ng. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whlteneck, and Vice Chairman Vannorsdall Commissioner Alberio arrived at 7 10 P.M. Absent Chairman Clark. (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru, Assistant Planner de Freitas, Assistant Planner Klopfenstem, Code Enforcement Officer Pollard, and Recording Secretary Selogie APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Franklin moved for the approval of the agenda as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru called attention to an additional correction to the Wayfarers Chapel item on Page 12 of the April 12, 1996 Planning Commission minutes suggested by Commissioner Franklin She noted information provided to Staff and the Commission from an anonymous source with regard to the Mello/Roos State law, an issue the City Council was considering in conjunction with the Ocean Trails project. Commissioner Alberio arrived at 7.10 P.M Commission None CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of April 23,1996 The following modifications were made to the minutes of April 23, 1996. Page 4, Paragraph 10, "Chair Clark asked Mr. Koch if he had done. " Page 8, Paragraph 4, " He indicated that he was present to provide..." Page 10, Paragraph 1, "..been told that it was all rightto build in the—" Commissioner Whiteneck moved for the approval of the minutes of April 23, 1996 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall (6-0). PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 1996 2. Minutes of May 28,1996 Commissioner Ng asked that the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures be modified to accurately reflect discussion as shown in the minutes of May 28, 1996 Planning Administrator Petru indicated that the requested change would be made and the corrected language distributed to the Commission Commissioner Whiteneck moved for the approval of the minutes of May 28, 1996 as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and, there beim no objection, it was so ordered by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 Variance 410 - Mr. Chafi Khadienouri, 2043 Jaybrook Drive Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the staff report. She pointed out that Condition No 6 to Exhibit "A" of the proposed resolution should be corrected as follows "A one -car garage with a minimum dimension of 18'-0" wide " since the existing residence only had one garage space Commissioner Alberio related his understanding that, should the owner of the subject property wish to construct a two -car garage, it would be necessary to obtain a Variance for the side yard setback Director/Secretary Petru advised that, at this time, there is no Code provision requiring a property owner to bring an enclosed garage up to Code when remodeling; that the City Council was currently reviewing a proposed Code amendment that would require a minimum of two enclosed garage spaces if a footprint was expanded 50% or more; and that this project would not be required to enlarge the existing garage under the proposed Code. Commissioner Ng observed that all the homes on Jaybrook Drive have the same setback from the curb. She asked if the 20 foot setback requirement was In existence when the homes were built. Director/Secretary Petru explained that the County did indeed have different front yard setback requirements when the homes were built and, when the City incorporated the subject area in 1983, the City's setback requirements were applied, thereby resulting in legal, non -conforming uses PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 1996 Commissioner .Alberto mentioned that, for many years, the City had been examining the idea of an Overlay Ordinance for the Eastview area because nothing there complies with the current Code Commissioner Whiteneck asked for input on the status of establishing an Overlay Ordinance in the Eastview area Director/Secretary Petru advised that, once the Development Code revisions are completed, staff will make several recommendations to the City Council about the Zoning Map amendments and Overlay Districts. Commissioner Ng requested clarification about the purpose of the excess public right-of- ways on either side of the actual roadway. Director/Secretary Petru related that the additional right-of-way was normally used to accommodate parkways, utilities, and sidewalks installed along the side of the roadway Director/Secretary Petru clarified for Commissioner Cartwright that, through an Overlay District, the development standards can be customized for an area Commissioner Cartwright voiced his agreement with the idea of establishing an Overlay District in the Eastview area in that all of the homes there are similarly situated and it would not make sense to require a Variance on every property. Commissioner Cartwright moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and it was so ordered without objection (6-0). There being no requests to speak, Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and it was so ordered without objection (6-0). Commissioner Alberio moved for the approval of the staff recommendation to allow an after -the -fact addition and fireplace which encroach a maximum of 912" into the minimum required 20'0" front yard setback area at 2043 Jaybrook Drive (Chafi Khadjenouri), subject to conditions in Exhibit "A," and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 96-14. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and it was so ordered without objection (6-0). Vice Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period from this date PLANNING CONMSSION June 11, 1996 NEW BUSINESS 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 110 - Revision "A" - Torrance Health Associates, 29409 S. Western Avenue Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the staff report He reviewed the recommended findings necessary to grant the request. On behalf of Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Mr. Ed Caruna, explained the employee's desires to increase the lighting levels around the parking lot for safety reasons He presented a lighting plan compiled by an electrical engineer Mr Caruna noted that the use of box lights which shine down and the topographical configuration of the area would reduce impacts to the surrounding area and he requested that 25 foot poles be allowed. Commissioner Alberio asked if this matter was discussed with residents living behind the subject property where the elevation is higher Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that the Code does not require notification to property owners for revisions to Conditional Use Permits Following a request from Commissioner Alberio, Mr Caruna stated his understanding that the lights across the street from the subject property in a shopping center located in San Pedro are at least 25 feet high. He clarified that the design of the lights allows them to only shine downward and that the 35 degree maximum angle of the lights would only shine down in the parking lot Commissioner Cartwright asked if the applicant has already chosen the lights to be used. Mr Caruna explained that all the lighting materials were already purchased and, in answer to a question from Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, he affirmed that light would not spill over to the orad. Director/Secretary Petru advised that this project is located in the Specific Pian IV District of the City; that a maximum light standard height of 16 feet was required in the District, and that, in order to allow a higher light standard, it would be necessary to amend the Specific Plan. Commissioner Alberio commented on the difficulty of the Commissioners having little time to review the lighting plan presented by Mr. Caruna earlier in this discussion Commissioner Ng observed that low wattage lights could be used around the perimeter of the parking area. PLANNING COMMISSION 5 June Il, 1996 Commissioner Franklin indicated that the foot candle presentation shows that the two areas with low light levels are along the building He saw no major problems that would arise by adding. additional lights to the face of the building (to fill in the low light level areas) Mr Caruna emphasized that the area would not be flooded with light Commissioner Franklin indicated that he was ambivalent about using 16 or 25 foot standards but that he was sensitive to the fact that we do have a code, and didn't see, any reason to go against that code Mr Caruna reiterated employee complaints that there is not enough light in the area Commissioner Franklin responded that the problems could be taken care of by adding lights to the side of the building and using 16 foot high light standards Commissioner Albeno agreed that security lights could be placed on the face of the building Mr Caruna said that the Idea of using wall packs was entertained but not proposed because they would shine toward Western Avenue. Director/Secretary Petru again verified that it is not within the Planning Commission's purview to grant an exception to the Specific Plan MOTION: Commissioner Albeno moved for the approval of the Staff recommendation to approve two light standards which would measure 16 feet in overall height, via minute order and subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and it was so ordered without objection (6-0) Vice Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period from this date Director/Secretary Petru explained that, should an appeal be filed with the City Council, the Council cannot change the Specific Plan without a public hearing. Discussion continued with Commissioner Franklin asking that the record reflect the fact that there are other ways. to meet the applicant's needs, even with 16 foot high light poles Commissioner Albeno mentioned that, should the applicant be willing to return with a plan utilizing 16 foot high poles, the item could be continued to a date certain. PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 1996 Mr_ Caruna asked that the Commission not change its approval of the Staff recommendation and he indicated that 16 foot high poles could be utilized He asked if it would be necessary to come before the Planning Commission, should the applicant wish to add lights or wall packs to the building Director/Secretary Petru related Staff's intent to check into whether the Specific Plan addresses lights on a building Commissioner Franklin voiced his understanding that the Conditional Use Permit for, the subject property requires the Planning Commission's review of all outdoor lighting. Director/Secretary Petru explained that a major amendment to the Conditional- Use Permit is required for changes to the lighting program for the parking lot 5. SupplementaLOuestions Retarding the Wayfarers Chapel Praiect Presented by Commissioner Franklin Vice Chairman Vannorsdall suggested that discussion of thus matter be delayed until such time as the Wayfarers Chapel project was returned for the Planning Commission's consideration. Director/Secretary Petru recalled previous Planning Commission discussion about the idea of placing this item on tonight's agenda She related Staff's recommendation that the City Geologist's review of and response to these questions be delayed until a short amount of time before the Wayfarers Chapel project is to be returned for the Planning Commission's consideration Referring to written material he distributed at the meeting, Commissioner Franklin emphasized that he had not taken a position on this project; but, he was looking for actual data on which to base his decision He indicated that he agreed to a delay until the Wayfarers Chapel decided to go ahead with the project However, he felt that they should be advised of his concerns as soon as possible. He asked that the answers to his questions be provided in the staff report when the project was next presented to the Commission and that, because he was not happy with the quality of the previous presentation on the Wayfarers Chapel, his questions to be given to both the Wayfarers Chapel and the City Geologist, so that they will both be prepared when this item was returned for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Franklin stressed that there appeared to be much uncertainty about the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirement for safety factors and he requested that Staff research same and provide the actual Code language, as well as an interpretation thereof PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 1996 Commissioner Franklin indicated that all of the forms of the requirement for safety factors, the least restrictive interpretation is that any proposed construction must not cause the safety factor to be aggravated. He indicated that, to him, this meant that one has to know the safety factor before the construction, must determine a calculated safety factor if the building were in place and must then decide. if the expected degradation is significant when compared to the margins and the uncertainties in the analysis. He then indicated some of the factors that should be considered. Commissioner Whiteneck agreed with the importance of obtaining definitive information prior to approving this protect. However, he stated his opinion that it should be approved or denied based on whether or not it complies with the Code; that, if it does comply with the. Code, it is then the responsibility of the Building and Safety Division -to see that i� is structurally sound, and that the Planning Commission's decision should be based on land use issues. Commissioner Franklin voiced his feeling that there seems to be a little ambiguity in the Code and what had been presented to the City Council, as well as what the City Council expected. He related his understanding that, according to the City Council, the Planning Commission had a responsibility to ensure that a project was safe and Commissioner Franklin said that he would welcome a clarification of the Planning Commission's responsibilities in this area. Commissioner Whiteneck offered his opinion that, according to State law, it is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to ensure the safety of a protect. He voiced his concern over the possibility of the Planning Commission making a decision which they were not qualified to make. Commissioner Franklin explained his support of a written analysis/examination of the existing procedures established by the City Council and governed by the State in order to provide the Commissioners with a clearer understanding of the Planning Commission's responsibilities. Commissioner Whiteneck entertained the idea of referring this particular problem to the City Engineer for further explanation. Director/Secretary Petru confirmed that it would be possible to obtain further clarification from the City's Geotechnical Consultant and Building Official. Commissioner Alberio agreed with Commissioner Franklin that the City's consultants and the Wayfarers Chapel representatives were not prepared when they previously came before the Planning Commission. He voiced his viewpoint that many of Commissioner Franklin's questions were outside the purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Albeno maintained that it was the responsibility of City employees/consultants, and not the Planning Commission, to analyze such things as safety factors. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 June 11, 1996 Commissioner Cartwright related his concern that the questions raised by Commissioner Franklin might be outside the Commission's purview and that, while the questions raised might be very valid, the answers might not assist in the decision-making process. He stated his understanding of the Planning Commission's role to act as a governing/administrative board over the City's Planning Department, observed that this appears to be a debate between City Staff and one of the Commissioners over geotechnical issues, and supported the idea of obtaining additional input as to the Planning Commission's role in this matter. Commissioner Ng expressed her understanding of Commissioner Franklin's concern over safety, particularly in the Landslide Moratorium area She felt it would be valid to obtain a second opinion Vice Chairman Vannorsdall recalled that his concerns over the Trak Engineers' opinions on the Taco Bell project previously considered by the Planning Commission led the City's Traffic Engineers to go back and make another analysis. He noted his opinion that the Commission's responsibility was to make a judgment call on the experts' analysis Commissioner Franklin said that he did not look at this matter as a contest between the results of two different analyses; that he was willing to accept the results of the City's analysis by a professional engineer; and that he intended to use the information provided as a basis to make a recommendation on the project as a whole Commissioner Whiteneck related his feeling that the Taco Bell project previously considered by the Commission should have been referred back to the Traffic Commission for consideration He contended that the Wayfarers Chapel item should be referred to the Public Works Department or the City Engineer for a report and he emphasized the need to do so prior to the Commission making a determination on land use, compatibility, etc Commissioner Franklin related his request that the Planning Department obtain the needed data in a timely manner. Commissioner Ng stated her agreement with the opinion of Commissioner Franklin Commissioner Cartwright called attention to the outstanding issue of the Planning Commission's role in situations of this type He agreed with Commissioner Whiteneck that the Wayfarers Chapel item should be referred to the proper department within the City. Commissioner Alberio commented on the difficulty of knowing what the questions on the Wayfarers Chapel will be until it is returned for the Commission's consideration in the future PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 1996 Commissioner Franklin indicated that he could accept a delay in receiving the information until such time as it is clear when the Wayfarers Chapel will proceed with the request. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall pointed out that, in the Landslide Moratorium area, the City Council has allowed building below the 15 safety factor, particularly in the case of repairs or replacements resulting from the Portuguese Bend Landslide, and that in such cases, the landowners must hold the City harmless if anything goes wrong. Director/Secretary Petru verified that property owners are allowed to repair and repl4ce structures damaged by geologic hazard and that the Council's review of the Wayfarers Chapel application was triggered because they were not proposing to rebuild the structure in the previous location. Commissioner Franklin related his understanding that the protect would be much bigger and heavier and that it would be located on a sloping pad. MOTION: Commissioner Whiteneck moved that the information about the Wayfarers Chapel contained in the Planning Commission minutes of April 23, 1996 be referred to the City Engineer to obtain input as to whether or not he has sufficient information to approve the safety of the building in the proposed location and that the Planning Commission take action on the project after that information was made available, however long it takes the architect to design the protect, etc. The motion ultimately died for lack of a second (see below). Discussion continued with Vice Chairman Vannorsdall suggesting that the motion be modified -to reflect that the information be referred to the City Engineer after the final plans are received from the Wayfarers Chapel. Director/Secretary Petru explained that the applicant submitted geotechnical reports to the City; that the expert on whom the City relies, Mr Dale Hinkle, performed an analysis, and that he approved it as adequate and a permit could be issued. She pointed out that the topic under discussion at this time was Mr Hinkle's conclusion, that it would appear that a second opinion from another Staff source is desired, that the City Engineer does not normally review geotechnical reports, but Staff could look into whether he is willing to do an analysis of this type, and that the permit would be .issued by the Building and Safety Department based on the geotechnical recommendation. Commissioner Cartwright acknowledged that the experts on whom the Building and Safety Department rely had approved the project and he questioned from whom a second opinion would be obtained. The motion offered above died for lack of a second. PLANNING COMMISSION 10 June 11, 1996 Commissioner Whiteneck favored referring the written material provided by Commissioner Franklin to the Geotechnical Consultant and asking him for a written explanation and support analysis. Director/Secretary Petru verified that a written response to questions posed by Commissioner Franklin had not been supplied by the Geotechnical Consultant; however, a written approval of the geotechnical study was provided. Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed her appreciation of Commissioner Franklin's efforts. She said that it would be a great mistake to postpone the concerns expressed by Commissioner Franklin, emphasized the importance of being informed when the Wayfarers Chapel item was returned for the Commission's consideration, commented on the sloppy nature of the information provided by Mr Hinkle, and related her concern over previous recommendations made by Mr Perry Ehlig with regard to the Portuguese Bend Landslide area. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall felt that it would be appropriate to refer the questions posed by Commissioner Franklin back to the City Geologist with a notation that the Planning Commission was expecting a thorough job Commissioner Whrteneck called attention to the importance of making a decision that was within the Planning Commission's purview MOTION: Commissioner Franklin moved for the following: o That the Planning Department be asked to review all of the requirement documents and advise the Planning Commission as to the true requirements with regard to the safety factor; and o That the portion of the April 23, 1996 Planning Commission minutes dealing with the Wayfarers Chapel, as well as the written material provided by Commissioner Franklin this evening, be provided to the Wayfarers Chapel and the City Engineer on an information -only basis, with the notation that, should the Wayfarers Chapel project proceed, they will be asked to do a rigorous analysis of the safety factor and the degradation caused by the building. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and ultimately passed by unanimous roll call vote. PLANNING COMMISSION 1 i June 11, 1996 Commissioner Whiteneck proposed adding an amendment as follows - 0 That this item be continued to the appropriate date, depending on when the plans are received for the Wayfarers Chapel The amendment was accepted after agreement was reached that it would not hold up developing the information requested The amended motion was passed by unanimous roll call vote (6-0). Commissioner Ng suggested that another opinion be obtained from an independent source ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 6 Pre -Agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, June 25, 1996 Referring to written material in the agenda packets, Director/Secretary Petru provided input on items to be placed for discussion on the Planning Commission agenda of June 25, 1996 Commission With regard to Minor Exception Permit No 501 (Appeal - Robert and Shirley Lee, 54 Oceanaire Drive [applicant] and Teng-Li Ann and Tai-Shon Lee, 55 Oceanaire .Drive [appellant]), which was scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on June 25, 1996, Commissioner Franklin questioned if he should abstain from consideration of this item in that he resides approximately one-half mile from the subject property and the appellant expressed her concerns about the project to him well in advance of his appointment to the Planning Commission Director/Secretary Petru suggested that Commissioner Franklin discuss this matter with the City Attorney Following a question from Commissioner Alberio, Director/Secretary Petru provided input on the status of the Ocean Trails project. She confirmed that it will be returned for the Planning Commission's consideration in the future PLANNING COMMISSION 12 June 11, 1996 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated her opinion that a property owner who filed an appeal pertaining to the Planning Department's approval of an after -the -fact driveway should not be charged for the appeal Ms. Larue presented Director/Secretary Petru with a gift to express appreciation of her efforts and to congratulate her on being appointed to the position of Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, ADJOURNMENT At 8 40 P M the meeting was duly adjourned to Tuesday, June 25, 1996, 7 00 P.M. PLANNING COMNIISSION 13 June (1,.1996