Loading...
PC MINS 19960625Approved r 8/27/95 _CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25,1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7.05 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Commissioner Franklin. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright,. Franklin, Ng, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck and Chairman Clark. Absent_ None Also Present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru, Assistant Planner deFreitas, Assistant Planner Klopfenstem, Code Enforcement Officer Pollard and Recording Secretary Selogie APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Franklin suggested that Agenda Item No. 4 (Appeal - Minor Exception Permit No 501) be considered first, however, the appellant had not yet arrived and the following motion was offered. MOTION: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved for the approval of the agenda as written The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin and, it was so ordered without objection by Chairman Clark. PLANNING CON WISSION June 25, 1996 a COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru noted that revised page nos. 1 and 6 of the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures, which were based on the adopted minutes of the last Planrung Commission meeting, were distributed to the Commission. With regard to Agenda Item No 1 (Coastal Permit No 131 and Grading Permit No 1877), Director/Secretary Petru advised that a June 25, 1996 letter from the City's geotechnical consultant was distributed to the Commission and that this letter replaced a similar letter dated June 11, 1996 in the agenda packets. Director/Secretary Petru mentioned that two items of correspondence pertaining to Agenda Item No 2 (Variance No 409) were hand delivered to the Commissioners. Commission Commissioner Cartwright briefed the Commission on discussions at the recent Mayors' Breakfast which he attended. He called attention to the upcoming Fourth of July celebration at the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall, the View Restoration Commission's continued discussions about the definition of a "view" and the View Restoration Commission's idea of holding a joint session with the Planning Commission, qnd possibly the City Council. Director/Secretary Petru advised that, at the July 2, 1996 City Council meeting, the final version of the Development Code will be discussed and that a position paper will be presented to the City Council that night requesting anoint session as discussed by Commissioner Cartwright. Chairman Clark thanked Commissioner Cartwright for attending the Mayors' Breakfast on his behalf since he was out of town on business. CONSENT CALENDAR None. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 At this time, Chairman Clark related the Planning Commission's request for the cooperation of interested parties in that the agenda this evening includes four Public Hearing items and one New Business item Chairman Clark mentioned that the Commissioners are neighborhood residents who volunteer their services to the community and that they are appointed by the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS COASTAL PERMIT NO.131 AND GRADING PERNUT NO.1877 - Mr. Don Glass - 7 Marguerite Drive ' Assistant Planner deFrertas presented the Staff Report He clarified that the 42 inch high fencing discussed in the last paragraph on page 4 of the Staff Report would be wrought iron fencing and not a solid wall and that the applicant intended to submit a Minor Exception Permit in the future to allow wrought iron fencing up to 6 feet in height. Director/Secretary Petru clarified that the plans call for a 3'6" high solid stucco wall, which complies with the Code, but, the applicant has the option to apply for a Minor Exception Permit for wrought iron on top of that, up to a maximum of six feet in height. Commissioner Alberio asked for input on the life of the access easement between the subject property and one of the undeveloped bluff -top lots Director/Secretary Petru advised that there was originally an easement established when the Lunada Pointe Tract was subdivided; that there was a lot line adjustment two years ago where the property lines were adjusted and the easement location was adjusted accordingly,, and that it is an easement in perpetuity for access to this lot and also to Lot 1 in Lunada Pointe. Commissioner Ng observed that the plans reflect the address of the subject property as 11 Marguerite Drive and the Staff Report shows 7 Marguerite Drive Assistant Planner deFrertas clarified that the address of the subject property is 7 Marguerite Drive MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and, it was so ordered without objection by Chairman Clark PLANNING COMMISSION ,lune 25, 1996 Assistant Planner deFreitas noted that a June 25, 1996 letter from the City's geotechnical consultant distributed to the Commissioners that evening replaced a June 11, 1996 letter included in the agenda packets. He highlighted that the geology on the site has been approved. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Doug Leach,119 West Torrance Boulevard, #24, Redondo Beach, expressed his appreciation of Staff s availability on this project He mentioned that two meetings were held with Mrs Marge Hastings, who resides adjacent to the subject property, to discuss the project with her. He related the applicant's intent to preserve views from adjacent residences and to push the house as far back as possible from the bluff top. Mr Leach indicated that Mrs Hastings did not object to the stake showing exactly where her view would stop and start and, subsequent to that time, the City made the determination the house must be pushed five feet further to the south to adhere to the rear setback requirements Mr Leach further indicated that the pool, the tennis court and the top of the pool accessory building would be lower than Mrs Hastings' floor level to preserve her ocean view, that the grading of over 5,000 cubic yards would be balanced on the site, that the driveway slope would be much less than the 20% allowed under the Code, that the tennis court would adhere to the setback requirements, that the tennis court perimeter fence would not be greater than six feet in height and it will be modified on the plans; and that the applicant intends to come back with a Minor Exception Permit to raise the fence heights and to request an additional 3'6" height adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive to deflect some of the noise from Palos Verdes Drive In summary, Mr. Leach called attention to the applicant's efforts to preserve views, not only from Mrs Hastings' property and other neighboring residences, but from Palos Verdes Drive. Commissioner Vannorsdall related his understanding that the drainage ditch would, be located under the new house Mr Leach advised that the applicant met with the Public Works Department regarding this issue, that a plan was previously submitted to divert the drainage to the side property line, and that the applicant would also divert the drainage to the side property line Assistant Planner deFrertas clarified that the issue of drainage was raised many years ago with the illegal grading which took place on this site and that the applicant is aware that adequate drainage must be provided Mr. Leach affirmed that the drainage would go around, and not under, the house Director/Secretary Petru advised that the drainage would be put into an underground pipe Commissioner Vannorsdall questioned what percentage of the lot would be open space PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 4 Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that the open space would exceed the Cade requirement of 75% Chairman Clark related his understanding that, according to the Staff Report, the open space would be 79 1 % Director/Secretary Petru advised that the 79 1% open space would largely be due to the fact that, per the Code, the tennis court and the pool do not count as lot coverage In answer to a question from Commissioner Cartwright, Mr Leach related his acceptance of the recommended Conditions of Approval Commissioner Albeno asked for input about tennis court lights Mr. Leach questioned if tennis court lights would be allowed Director/Secretary Petru advised that tennis court lighting usually exceeds the maximum light wattage requirements for residential lots in Rancho Palos Verdes and that a Conditional Use Permit would probably be required for tennis court lights. Commissioner Alberio questioned why the applicant was not requesting tennis court lights at this time. Mr Leach indicated that there was no particular reason why tennis court lights were not requested at this time and that the applicant plans to come back in the future for a Minor Exception Permit for fencing. Commissioner Alberio asked for clarification about the amount of grading proposed Mr Leach explained that much of the cut would occur because the house would be cut into the hillside and pushed back toward Palos Verdes Drive West as much as possible and that the cut vanes all over the site. Commissioner Alberio observed that, according to the letter from Mrs. Hastings, she still had some concerns about the project. Mr. Leach clarified his indication earlier in this discussion that Mrs Hastings does not object to the project, as stated in her letter Commissioner Vannorsdall requested input from Staff about whether the project would be acceptable in terms of geology Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that the City's geotechnical consultant reviews and approves the geology for all projects in the City. During discussion of the June 25, 1996 letter from the City's geotechnical consultant, which was distributed to the Commissioners that evening, Mr. Leach pointed out that the letter stated that the proposed landslide setback was to the west of the property line approximately an additional 50 to 70 feet, which is a total of 220 to 300 feet from the front of the proposed house. He related his understanding this could be interpreted that the City's geotechmcal consultant knew where the landslide scarp was located Commissioner Franklin voiced his understanding that, according to the June 25, 1996 letter from the City's geotechnical consultant, the inclinometer would no longer be required PLANNING CUMMISSIQN June 25, 1996 Commissioner Cartwright stated that the June 25, 1996 letter from the City's geotechnical consultant basically says the consultant agreed that the applicant could move ahead with the house on the property, but, the consultant does not agree that any permanent structures should be put on the seaward side of the landslide setback line because there could be future landslide issues in that area Mr Leach related his understanding that, according to the June 25, 1996 letter from the City's geotechnical consultant, the consultant stated that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes/Norris and Consultants would not assume any responsibility for structures west of the house and that those structures were considered to be expendable Commissioner Cartwright asked if there were any unusual circumstances pertaining to the lot to the north, probably located in the City of Palos Verdes Estates, and he asked if the only lot about which the City's geotechnical consultant was concerned was the one located in front of the subject property Director/Secretary Petru advised that the City's geotechnical consultant's concern centered around Lot No. 1 in Lunada Pointe and that the only lot which has slip erosion is Lunada Point Lot No 1, which is where the references to the landslide were coming from In answer to a question from the Commission, Director/Secretary Petru affirmed that the Coastal Permit was noticed to property owners within 100 feet of this site. Assistant Planner deFreitas verified that the applicant far exceeded the minimum requirements for noticing on this project Commissioner Franklin stated his impression that the applicant intended to construct retaining walls and he asked if they would satisfy the requirements recommended by the City's geotechnical consultant He asked if the Building Code would allow the house to be in the proposed location with the retaining walls in place. Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that the City's geotechnical consultant based their review on the plans before the Commission that evening. Director/Secretary Petru further advised that it would be necessary for Staff to consult with the City's geotechnical consultant about the ascending slope between the house and Palos Verdes Drive West and she observed one of the recommended Conditions of Approval describes the descending slope, which would be a seaward slope Director/Secretary Petru clarified for Commissioner Ng that, even though they are structures, accessory buildings are not considered to be habitable structures, like the house PLANNING CONMSSION June 25, 1996 Commissioner Franklin stated his objection to solid walls, particularly on lots having ocean views and he asked if the applicant would be willing to place foliage in front of the solid wall Mr Leach replied that it would appear there is definitely room between the wall and the road to provide landscaping. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the City would need to review the landscaping because some of it might be in the public right-of- way and, should the Commission agree with such a requirement, it would be necessary to add a Condition of Approval to that effect Following a question from Commissioner Ng, Assistant Planner deFreitas affirmed that the previous illegal grading on the subject property had been legalized. He advised that, for several years, the property was used as a dumping ground; that the City got involved in it through Code Enforcement, that the illegal activity which occurred on the site went to the City Council for consideration, that the site did not exist in its current configuration for many years, and that the previous owner of the property was required to compact the usable material dumped on the site and haul off any unusable material dumped on the site Mr. Brad Ellis, (no address provided), Manhattan Beach, partner in the project and general contractor, clarified that, as a part of this project, the drainage plan developed years ago would have to be completed and that there is an easement in place which would accommodate the drainage pipe Commissioner Alberto asked if Mr Ellis has a license to do business in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Ellis replied that he presently has no business in the City, but, he would obtain one should this project be approved Chairman Clark asked why the house would be 12,588 square feet in size. Mr Ellis explained that this size house would be suitable for the site, that there is an unusual situation here because of the natural privacy created by the configuration of the lot and the suitable pad site Chairman Clark asked if Mr. Ellis would reside in the house Mr Ellis said that he would not and he confirmed for Commissioner Vannorsdall that the house would be built on speculation MOTION: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark Discussion continued with Commissioner Cartwright stating his support of the St4ff recommendation for an approval, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval, in that the project would be compatible with others in the area, the grading would not be excessive when the size of the property is taken into consideration and the project would be consistent with the Coastal Plan and the City Code Commissioner Cartwright said he could see no reason not to support the Staff recommendation PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 7 0 0 Commissioner Ng echoed the statements made by Commissioner Cartwright. She related her appreciation of the architect's efforts to set the house back to preserve Mrs Hastings' view Commissioner Franklin related his opinion that Staff and the architect cooperated very well in developing this project. Although the house would be big, he said it would not significantly impact ocean views from neighboring residences. Commissioner Franklin related his concern that a Minor Exception Permit might be requested to increase the height of the fences, particularly along Palos Verdes Drive West He voiced his understanding that there was some discussion by the City Council that any Minor Exception Permits for projects approved by the Planning Commission would have to be brought back to the Planning Commission, asked if such a determination by the City Council would apply to this project; and stated that he would like to be involved in the decision on whether the height of the fence would be increased Director/Secretary Petru related her uncertainty as to whether such a determination would extend to such things as fencing; but, it certainly could if the Council were to so choose as part of the revisions to the Development Code Commissioner Franklin related his understanding that any Minor Exception Permit on projects considered by the Planning Commission would come to the Planning Commission for consideration. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the determination would apply to the building envelope of a house, but, she was not sure it would apply to accessory structures like a fence Commissioner Franklin recommended that the wall along the street not be increased above 3'6" in height without coming back to the Planning Commission for consideration Chairman Clark indicated that requirements imposed on the project would have to, be consistent with the requirements pertaining to Minor Exception Permits and, unless the Commission were to get into interpretation, he said he was not sure that could be done Commissioner Alberto expressed his agreement with Commissioner Franklin. However, he said he had a problem with the requirement Commissioner Franklin recommended for fencing Commissioner Alberto related his understanding that the building envelope does not include fences Chairman Clark explained his viewpoint that it might not be appropriate to include the requirement suggested by Commissioner Franklin Commissioner Alberto entertained the idea of asking the City Council to look at this matter in the near future PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 Chairman Clark related his belief that it would not be appropriate to place that type of Condition of Approval on the project, particularly one which might be outside the normal purview of the Planning Commission Commissioner Franklin expressed his desire that an approval of the project be consistent with the Conditions of Approval for the setbacks and the ascent of the slope as recommended by the City's geotechnical consultant Should the wording be found to be in conflict, he asked that it be returned to the Commission Director/Secretary Petru clarified that, according to recommended Condition of Approval No 7, moving the house forward on the lot would require a revision to an approval, which would in turn require the return of this project to the Planning Commission She advised that a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to comply with all requirements of the City's geotechmcal consultant could be added to an approval of the project Commissioner Alberio suggested adding a Condition of Approval that the retaining walls shall be appropriately landscaped to screen them from the public view. Director/Secretary Petru verified for Commissioner Ng that the Building Department would make sure the plans comply with the recommendations of the City's geotechnical consultant. Voicing his general support of the project, Commissioner Whiteneck observed that it would be compatible with the area Chairman Clark questioned how the project would compare in terms of size to other private residences in Rancho Palos Verdes Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that one of the houses in the Seacliff Hills development was on the same scale as this project, that the house across the street from this site is similar in size to this project; and that the houses in the existing Lunada Pointe tract average between 8,000 and 10,000 square feet in size Chairman Clark asked how long it would take to construct the project Mr Ellis replied it would take approximately 9 to 12 months to complete the project Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that, although this might be one of the largest houses in the City, it was probably one of the largest lots being developed Chairman Clark recalled that the Winkler house off of Via Subida was on approximately 5 acres of land and the house was in the range of this project PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 0 Director/Secretary Petru read aloud the Staff recommendation for a Condition of Approval pertaining to landscaping as follows "That the property owner shall submit a Landscape Plan prior to the issuance of Building Permits to screen the 3'6" high solid stucco wall along Palos Verdes Drive West, subject to approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement MOTION; Commissioner Vannorsdall moved for the approval of Coastal Permit No 131 and Grading Permit No 1877, subject to Conditions of Approval as recommended by Staff, adding Conditions of Approval as follows o That the property owner shall submit a Landscape Plan prior to the issuance of Building Permits to screen the 3'6" high solid stucco wall along Palos Verdes Drive West, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and o That the property owner shall comply with all requirements of the City's geotechnical consultant The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and passed by unanimous roll call vote (7-0) Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period from the date of the meeting. 2 VARIANCE NO. 409 - Mr. Albert McClain - 2071 General Street Assistant Planner deFreitas presented the Staff Report Commissioner Alberio commented on continuing problems with the Eastview area caused by the small lot sizes in this area of the City and on the idea of creating an Overlay District for this area. Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that, as far as the City's records show, a Site Plan Review was issued in 1987 for a new patio cover at the back of the property, as well as some improvements to the interior of the house He emphasized that the approval in 1987 was for a the new patio cover (and not a room) that was to respect the minimum 15 foot rear yard setback; and that, as far as Staff could tell, that room did not exist prior to the City's annexation of the Eastview area in 1983 Assistant Planner deFreitas further advised that the trellis is an unpermitted structure within the front yard setback and that the trellis along the side of the house encroaches into the side yard setback PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 10 Recalling a case previously considered by the Planning Commission, Commissioner Cartwright related his understanding that the properties in the Eastview area, which became part of Rancho Palos Verdes in 1983 and were built to the County Code, were "grandfathered." Should that be the case, he asked why the City would require the applicant to remove the patio coyer Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that the applicant's previous patio cover encroached into the rear yard setback, that, because the property owner was making improvements to the property, including a new patio cover, the City required that aspect of the property to be brought into compliance with the current Code; and that there are numerous unpermitted structures in the Eastview area Commissioner Cartwright related his opinion that, should the Variance be approved, the applicant would not be given an undue privilege which others in the neighborhood do not have He pointed out that the subject property is very small with very little space in the rear yard, expressed his feeling that the same arguments the Planning Commission previously used to approve a project on Jaybrook could apply to this request, and voiced his understanding that the existing footprint for the structure existed when the applicant purchased the property MOTION: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and it was so ordered without objection by Chairman Clark. Mr, Al McClain, 2071 General Street, explained that the patio was constructed prior to 1983 and that he enclosed it for privacy; that, other than Mr Whitsitt (residing at 2050 Elberon Street), the covered patio does not impose on the privacy of neighboring residents, as is evidenced by the signatures he obtained, that, according to City files he reviewed, other projects similar to his in the Eastview area have been approved; that he covered the spa and patio areas because Mr Whitsitt's second story addition impacts his privacy, that he lowered the spa below the solid fence to reduce impact on Mr. Whitsitt, that he would be willing to lower the spa even more and would be open to suggestions to please Mr. Whitsitt, and that he did not do anything to alter the rear yard slope. In answer to questions from the Commission, Mr. McClain stated that he has resided at the property for approximately 10 years; that he applied for Permits to add his living room in 1987, that he enclosed the patio in 1989, that he was not aware he needed a Permit to enclose the patio, that the spa was enclosed approximately 3 months ago -- that the spa was not there when he purchased the property but was installed within the last 6 months, and that he was not aware he needed a Permit to enclose the spa - he thought Permits were only necessary for major structures PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 11 0 0 Commissioner Alberio explained that, when the applicant enclosed the patio, a Permit was required since it then became part of the residence, that, in his opinion, the size of the lot is not small for the area; that, in this area, the rear yard is typically used for additions such as the applicant's; and that the enclosed patio was not properly built due to the fact that it impairs views and it is too close to the side and rear yard property lines Mr McClain stated that, except for the encroachment, the patio room was built to the City's specifications Commissioner Ng discussed that, according to the Staff Report, in 1987 the patio was required to respect the setback, however, at this time, it does not Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that, as far as the records can be traced, there was an existing patio cover on the site which encroached into the rear yard setback; that, as part of the Site Plan Review issued by the City in 1987 in conjunction with the living room addition, a new patio cover which respected the minimum rear yard setback requirement of 15 feet was to be erected, that the Building Permit for the living room addition contains a notation "remove the patio cover for Planning Department Conditions of Approval before final;" and that, according to Mr. McClain, the patio cover was constructed after the issuance of the Building Permit for the living room. Director/Secretary Petru advised that there was no County Permit on file for the original patio cover and that, when the City was asked to issue a Permit for a property which has a Code violation or an illegal structure, it was typical to condition it to be brought into conformance Commissioner Cartwright asked if the existing roof over this enclosure is the same roof which was there in 1987 and if the applicant cut back the roof at the time the living room was extended to comply with the Code. Mr McClain said that he did not cut the roof back in 1987 Director/Secretary Petru advised that the Condition of Approval- to remove the patio cover was written on the Building Permit; that the Condition is very clear on the plans, and that the Building Permit was finaled She confirmed the possibility that the City did not enforce the Conditions of Approval during the Final Inspection for the living room addition Mr McClain said that, when he received the Final Building Permit from the City, he was under the impression that the patio cover was okay; that he never received a letter telling him it would be necessary to remove the existing patio cover and replace it with one which respected the rear yard setback requirement of 15 feet, that a notation to that effect was written on the blue print for the living room addition; that, when he purchased the subject property, he was not informed of the necessity to remove the existing patio cover, that he purchased the property because of the patio; that Mr. Whitsitt's balcony looks down on his spa; and that the spa has been enclosed for the past 8 years. PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 12 Commissioner Franklin requested clarification from Mr McClain as to the illegal construction on the subject property earlier this year as cited in the Staff Report. Mr McClain said that he was enclosing the spa. In answer to a question from Commissioner Vannorsdall, Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that a formal Stop Work Order was not issued for construction of the applicant's spa earlier this year; that the construction workers on the site were asked to cease all work until appropriate Planning Department approval was obtained, and that, when the City initially went to investigate the project, the spa enclosure was not completed so there has been further construction since the City asked that all work stop Mr McClain said that the spa was completed at the time the City came to his property and that the work to which Assistant Planner deFrertas referred was a very small deck on the side Mr. Michael Henderson, 3560 Ocean View Drive, Los Angeles, related his support of the project. He stated that, when the applicant purchased the subject property, certain improvements already existed, that, when the Building Permit was pulled in 1987, there was an attachment which said there was an encroachment, so the patio cover was considered to be an encroachment at that time; that the applicant applied for and received a Building Permit and the Final Inspection which showed the patio cover was still in its present condition, that there are approved Variances for other projects in the neighborhood similar to the applicant's, that he is a friend of the applicant's, that he is not a licensed contractor; and that he assisted the with the construction of the applicant's living room. Commissioner Cartwright related his understanding that Mr Henderson indicated the encroachment was noted at the time the applicant purchased the subject property Mr Henderson said that, at the time the Building Permit was obtained in 1987, the plans indicated that the patio cover 5 feet from rear property line and 5 feet from the side property line, so it was clearly noted. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the Clearance Form for the- Site Plan Review issued m 1987 says 15 from the rear property line. Mr Henderson maintained that to ask the applicant to cut back the patio cover when there are other properties in the neighborhood which are clearly enjoying such an encroachment would be unreasonable He noted the City Building Inspector signed off on the project so the property owner was under the impression it was in compliance. PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 13 Mr -Luther Whitsitt, 2050 Elberon Street, stated that he is the only neighbor whose view was impacted by the spa and patio enclosures, that he called the City several times to. inform them about the applicant's spa, that a previous patio cover was constructed by a previous resident to keep the sun off the back portion of the patio, and that the applicant clearly did not comply with City requirements. He clarified for Commissioner Albeno that the second story addition on his home was constructed approximately 26 years earlier Commissioner Cartwright observed that there are many structures in the Eastview area which would not be approved today He explained the process whereby structures were grandfathered in when the Eastview area was annexed into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in 1983 Commissioner Ng. asked if Mr Whitsitt could see the spa enclosure from his property before he trimmed the tree. Mr Whitsitt said the entire structure was easy to see from his property; that an approval of the Variance would be a blatant violation of the rules; and that the tree does not impact his view Commissioner Cartwright stated his impression that the height of the applicant's structure is below the height, of Mr Whrtsitt's fence. Mr Whitsitt said that it was not. Commissioner Wluteneck observed that, from a slightly raised deck in Mr Wlutsitt's rear yard, the top of the spa was visible Chairman Clark pointed out that, should the applicant be required to remove the structures, they could be rebuilt in accordance with the Code. Mr Whitsitt explained that he was primarily concerned with the spa. Commissioner Cartwright asked if lowering the roof of the spa enclosure by approximately one foot would please Mr Whitsitt. Mr Whitsitt replied that he would like to see the specifications prior to agreeing to same, that it is imperative the Planning Commission see flus issue for what it was, and that the applicant was aware of what he was doing and should be held accountable for his actions. MOTION: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Commissioner Vannorsdall requested clarification as to what modifications would be necessary should the Variance be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 14 0 0 Assistant Planner deFrertas advised that one wall of the patio cover is glass; that the Building Code contains requirements about the maximum amount of glazing on a residence; and that there are probable electrical violations with both the patio enclosure and the spa enclosure. Director/Secretary Petru advised that an engineering report regarding structural integrity, as well as an examination of the geology, may be necessary should the Variance be approved Should the Variance be granted, Commissioner Vannorsdall questioned if it would be economically feasible to keep the room because of the reconstruction which might be necessary to obtain a Building Permit. He requested clarification regarding the slope by the retaining wall. Assistant Planner deFrertas advised that, according to the plans, the slope is in excess of 35% and that it is difficult to determine whether the slope was created as a result of back fill Commissioner Vannorsdall related his feeling that many questions must be answered prior to the Commission making a determination on this request He questioned whether it was fair for the City to review only violations which are brought to the City's attention and entertained the idea of continuing this item until such time as better solutions, such as an Overlay District or direction from the City Council, are obtained. Director/Secretary Petru advised that, based on Staff resources and direction from the City Council, neighborhoods are not canvassed for violations, however, Code violations that are brought to the City's attention must be pursued Chairman Clark asked for clarification about previous Variance approvals for setback encroachments in the Eastview area. Director/Secretary Petru advised that only one of the 11 cases looked into by the applicant was in the Eastview area, however, she noted that more Variances are probably granted in the Eastview and Portuguese Bend areas because of small lot sizes Commissioner Alberio related his concern that there is no Overlay District in the Eastview area However, he noted the Commission must deal with the issues at hand, voiced concern about the potential for the City to be liable should the Commission approve something it should not, and suggested this problem be dealt with by requiring the applicant to bring the structures into conformance with the Code. Responding to a question from Commissioner Franklin, Assistant Planner deFrertas advised that a Building Permit was not obtained for the spa PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 15 Commissioner Franklin related his understanding that, according to the Code, Building Permits are not required for buildings less than 120 square feet in size. Director/Secretary Petru advised that, according to the Uniform Building Code, Building Permits are not required for structures less than 120 square feet in size which are not habitable. But, there are Planning requirements pertaining to height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc for accessory structures such as the spa enclosure Commissioner Franklin clarified that the spa enclosure is under 120 square feet sq it would not require a Building Permit, however, it must conform to Planning setback, height and open space requirements Director/Secretary Petru called attention to the fact that the spa structure was elevated above the rear yard area She advised that it must be constructed to meet safety requirements for the stairway because the stairway landing was over 30 inches above the adjacent grade She venfied that, if the spa was sitting flat on the ground, it would not need a Building Permit, that Staff would have to check into whether the fact it was elevated would trigger any requirements, and that Building Permits would be necessary for the patio enclosure because it was over 120 square feet in size Commissioner Cartwright requested clarification regarding how the Building Permit process works when it was impossible for the City to look at the integrity of a structure He related his understanding that such a structure could be approved with a notation that the City was unable to inspect it and certify various safety conditions Director/Secretary Petru affirmed that, under certain circumstances, the City has the ability to issue "As -Built" Building Permits Commissioner Cartwright asked for input about liability when an "As -Built" Permit was issued Director/Secretary Petru said that Staff would have to look into it, however, applicants are often required to obtain an engineer's certification that a structure was acceptable when the City cannot verify the foundation, etc. Commissioner Whiteneck perceived the problem as the structure does not conform to the Uniform Building Code and might not conform to the City's Code He related his feeling that electrical problems were very serious. Commissioner Ng expressed her viewpoint that the spa enclosure should be made to conform to the Uniform Building Code, that, since the patio enclosure existed at the time the applicant purchased the property, he should not be required to tear it down - but, it should comply also with the Uniform Building Code, that the roof of the spa could not be lowered too much because head room was needed inside the structure; that the spa could be enclosed with a trellis and landscaping to provide privacy; that the stairs and the railing should be made to comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements for PLANNING COMMISSIQN June 25, 1996 16 safety She said she had no problem with the rear yard setback encroachment pertaining to the patio. Director/Secretary Petru noted that it was very possible that the requirement to cut the patio cover back to meet the setback was missed when the Building Permit was issued for the living room addition in 1987 Chairman Clark mentioned that testimony that evening would suggest there was an encroachment of the patio cover into the rear yard setback and that it was not required to be fixed in 1987 upon Final Inspection during the Building Permit process. Director/Secretary Petru noted that there have been a few Variance approvals similar to this request, but those projects generally did not impact surrounding neighbors Commissioner Franklin commented on the difficulty of this decision. While he felt that the applicant should be required to bring both buildings into compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Commissioner Franklin explained that he could support the patio cover encroachment because there have been no complaints about it over the last eight years He felt that the spa enclosure appeared to be well built, but whether or not it meets the Building Codes must be determined by a Building Inspector and that it would be more aesthetically pleasing if it were moved to a lower level. Commissioner Alberio favored working with the applicant to minimize possible liability to the City He basically supported the Staff recommendation to deny the request MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved for the approval of the Staff recommendation to deny Variance No 409 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and ultimately defeated by a 2-5 majority vote (see page no 18) Discussion after the motion continued with Chairman Clark noting the lack of clarity with regard to when some of the Code violations occurred He commented that the City had the opportunity in 1987 to require that the patio cover respect the rear yard setback, but did not, and that the issue regarding the patio enclosure appears to be centered around whether or not something could be done about the current encroachment to make it "whole" and whether it is in conformance with the Building Code At the request of Chairman Clark, Director/Secretary Petru advised that it would be necessary to remove approximately one-third of the patio cover to eliminate the encroachment Chairman Clark said that the more pressing issue to him was the building itself and, if it could be brought up to Code and the structural integrity could be verified, he could be persuaded to support the patio cover encroachment PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 17 f 0 With regard to the spa enclosure, Chairman Clark noted that it was a more recent Code violation, that there was clear evidence it was constructed within the last year without Building Permits; that it abuts the rear property line; that there were questions about its structural integrity, and that it was elevated above the level of the rear yard area. He offered that he was not inclined to agree with leaving it in its current configuration; that there was room on the property for it to be moved; and that the applicant should be required to bring it into compliance with the Uniform Building Code Commissioner Franklin stated his agreement with Chairman Clark Commissioner Cartwright noted that the enforcement of the Code requirements was very important, but it was also important to be fair to residents He supported an approval of the Variance subject to Conditions of Approval, including a requirement that the structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code and safety requirements Commissioner Cartwright voiced his opinion that it would be possible for the City to make a determination with regard to safety and that he would hate to see the applicant be required to remove the structures when, from the applicant's property, one can see other structures which were built right along property lines but have not been brought to the City's attention The motion for denial was defeated by the following 2-5 majority roll call vote; Ayes- Aibeno, Whiteneck Noes Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Vannorsdall and Chairman Clark Abstain. None. Absent- None MOTION: Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve Variance No. 409, subject to Conditions of Approval as recommended by Staff, including that the structures shall conform with the requirements of the Uniform Building and Safety Codes. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Whiteneck emphasized that the structures must conform with the Uniform Building Code and that Variances can only be granted for items having to do with the City's Development Code, such as the setback encroachment MOTION: Commissioner Ng moved for the following. o That the patio cover shall be approved in its current configuration; o That the applicant shall be directed to relocate the spa to comply with the rear yard setback requirements, and PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 18 o That both structures shall be made to comply with the Uniform Building Code The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed by the following 5-2 majority roll call vote. Ayes- Commissioners Franklin, Ng, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck and Chairman Clark Noes- Commissioners Alberio and Cartwright. Abstain None. Absent None Director/Secretary Petru advised that the Resolution for the Planning Commission's action on Variance No 409 will be presented for the Commission's approval at the next meeting Chairman Clark advised that the 15 -day appeal period of the Planning Commission's decision will begin after the Resolution was approved At 9 45 P M there was a recess until 9.55 P M. when the meeting reconvened with all Commissioners present At this time, Agenda Item No. 4 was considered prior to Agenda Item No. 3 for the purpose of determining if it would be continued, withdrawn or considered later in the meeting 4_ MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 501 - APPEAL - Robert and Shirley Lie, 54 Oceanaire Drive (Applicant) and Ten -Le Ann and Tai Shon Lee, 55 Oceanaire Drive (Appellant) Commissioner Franklin commented that the appellant was previously given inaccurate information by the City with regard to the size of the driveway, that, according to the most recent calculations, the driveway would only be 55 square feet over the maximum allowed, and that, had the appellants been given accurate information, they might not have filed an appeal. He suggested a continuance for the appellants to reconsider this matter PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 19 0 0 Ms. Wei-Drin Lee, 911 Prospect, Princeton, New Jersey, came forward to state the appellant's desire to go forward with the appeal that evening Discussion returned to Agenda Item No. 3 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 190 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 681- Pacific Bell Mobile Services - 27501 Western Avenue Green Hills Memorial Parkl Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Alberio asked if this item would fall under the City's Franchise Ordinance. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the City had lease agreements with the various carriers o the monopole at City Hall, that the City was not a partner in this particular project and that the agreement would be between Green Hills and Pacific Bell; and that, should the request be approved, it may be necessary for the applicant to obtain a Business License from the City. MOTION: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Albeno and it was so ordered without objection by Chairman Clark Mr. Jerome Buckmelter, 5959 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Los Angeles, 90045, explained that Pacific Bell is the license provider for Personal Communication Systems (PCS) throughout California and Nevada. He offered input on the positive aspects of PCS; noted that the antennae would be mounted on the mausoleum, that the equipment cabinets would be mounted on the north side of the mausoleum and they would be screened with vegetation, and that Pacific Bell would be willing to obtain a Business License should it be necessary to do so. Commissioner Alberio stated his concern about possible radiation because of the microwaves. Mr. Buckmelter advised that the antennae would be directed to the west 275 degrees; that the beam power would be infinitesimal; that the standard for this product are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and that the frequency would be 1.8 gHz. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the radiation from this kind of antenna could be a health hazard MR. Buckmelter said that he was unaware of anything to that effect, however as long as the FCC requirements are complied with, it would be fair to presume the operation was safe. PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 Fill Mr. Arnold Oksenkrug,1979 Avenida Feliciano, noted that his residence backs up to Green Hills He asked if the antennae frequencies could impact television reception in any way and voiced his concern over possible health hazards to those visiting Green Hills Mr. Buckmelter said that the antenna would not interfere with television reception. Commissioner Ng questioned if the station would be in the way of the emergency stairway which exits the lower portion of the mausoleum Mr. John Resich, Member of Green Hills Board of Directors, assured Commissioner Ng that the station would be located so that it would not be in the way of pedestrian traffic and that it would be shielded from view by vegetation MOTION: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the Staff recommendation to approve Conditional Use Permit No 190 and Environmental Assessment No 681 as conditioned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin and passed by unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period from the date of the meeting. At this time, discussion of Agenda Item No. 4 continued Code Enforcement Officer Pollard presented the Staff Report He explained the differences in the Staff's previous calculations of the amount the driveway was in excess of the maximum allowable hardscape Director/Secretary Petru advised that using a plan prepared by the applicant, an Associate Planner had previously calculated an area as paved when it was not, which contributed to the error in measurement. She verified that the grass in the middle of the driveway is counted as open space. Code Enforcement Officer Pollard clarified for Commissioner Cartwright that the applicant's original Site Plan Review application was conditioned not to exceed 50% hardscape Director/Secretary Petru advised that the original request was approved by Staff, that it was difficult to estimate the hardscape coverage because of the semi -circular driveway, and that the original calculation was based on the plans submitted by the applicant and that the final calculation was done after the driveway was constructed by measuring the actual dimensions of the hardscape in the field_ PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 21 Following a question from Commissioner Franklin, Director/Secretary Petru provided input regarding turf block. She advised that the applicant installed grass where turf block was originally proposed and that based on Council direction during the review of the Development Code revisions, turf block was no longer counted as a 50% landscaping credit. Director/Secretary Petru related to the Chairman a request from the appellant to combine the speaking times of many in support of the appeal and allow one representative to speak for an extended period of time The Chairman agreed to allow the appellant 15 minutes to speak. MOTION: Commissioner Whiteneck moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and it was so ordered without objection by Chairman Clark. On behalf of the appellants, Ms. Wei -Drip Lee, 911 Prospect, Princeton, New Jersey, contended that the entire driveway area, including the grass between the tire strips, should be counted as hardscape, that this request should be for a Variance and not a Minor Exception Permit; that the tree the applicant removed was in the public right-of- way; that using after -the -fact approvals to make obvious wrongs legitimate violates the intent of the Code, and that the City has made errors, neglected complaints and failed in prompt Code enforcement at the expense of its citizens. Ms. Lee presented extensive information to substantiate her contentions as called out above. She explained that the tree in question instigated this entire issue because the original plans incorrectly marked the location of the tree and the removal of the tree made room for the illegal, after -the -fact driveway Ms. Lee cited letters from the City to the applicants which she felt clearly demonstrated that the City failed to properly determine the location of the tree She emphasized that the calculations for the semi- circular driveway encroachment are not precise At this time, Chairman Clark instructed Ms. Lee that she would be given an additional ten minutes to speak. He voiced concern that the appellant's representative was given an extended period of time to speak on behalf of parties in support of the appeal who were not present at this meeting. Ms. Lee addressed the City's reasoning behind the approval of the 5 7% reduction in landscaped area, as discussed on page 4 of the Staff Report. She discussed that the reduced width of the lot does not qualify a necessary hardship; that legal or illegal non- conforming cases should not be used as a basis for approval, and that the applicants' driveway should not be compared to others in the area, particularly because it has a small radius since most of the other driveways in the area cannot be seen from the street. Ms. Lee stressed that the City ignored complaints made by the appellants and that the integrity of the Code must be protected. PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 22 Commissioner_ Cartwright voiced his understanding that the City tree which was removed is not part of the Minor Exception Permit (MEP) before the Commission this evening Ms Lee stated that the semi -circular driveway should be safe and similar to others in the area and that it should not be allowed due to the presence of the grassy area She requested that the semi -circular driveway be removed In answer to a question from Commissioner Ng, Ms. Lee explained that the driveway is 15% (including the grassy area) over the 20% reduction in open space allowed by the MEP, therefore, she felt that a Variance should have been required Commissioner Alberio related his understanding that the driveway is legal Ms Lee stressed that it is illegal and that it does not comply with the Code. Commissioner Alberio observed that the appellant has a new garage and he asked if the proper Permits were obtained. Ms Lee said that they were. Commissioner Alberio asked for clarification from Staff on this matter Director/Secretary Petru advised that it would be necessary for Staff to examine the address file for the property to determine if Building Permits for the appellants' garage were obtained Mr. Tai -Shoo Lee, 55 Oceanaire Drive, appellant, pointed out that, if the grass strip in the applicant's driveway was not counted as landscaped area, the total driveway area would greatly exceed the allowable hardscape within the front yard setback area. Subsequent to a request from Commissioner Franklin, Ms Lee gave an emotional explanation as to how this matter had personally affected her family Mr. Fred Lie, 54 Oceanaire Drive, applicant, informed the Commission of his understanding that the appellant objects to his driveway because of a superstition. He said that he replaced the tree which erroneously removed from the public right-of-way, that many other properties in the neighborhood have semi -circular driveways and excess lot coverage; that his driveway does not affect the RS -2 zoning requirements for open space, that the appellant asked for and received the logs from the tree which was removed; that the tree might not have been located where Ms. Lee thought it was; that the removal of the tree did not adversely impact the value of properties in the neighborhood, that he has spent much time and money landscaping his property, that his driveway conforms to the allowable 20% grade, and that the appellant asked him to move the driveway so that it would not face her front door ,which would make the radius even smaller, and she is now complaining about the size of the radius Mr. Timothy Cotter, 57 Oceanaire Drive, residing next to the appellant and across the street from the applicants, voiced his opinion that the new driveway enhances the entire neighborhood. ININKNI1 0 1 1 ! June 25, 1996 23 Ms. Virginia Cicoria, 62 Oceanaire Drive, related her feeling that the applicants' remodel is a beautiful asset and enhancement to the neighborhood She said that the appellants' landscaping leaves something to be desired Ms. Lee came forward again to rebut comments made by the applicant and other parties in favor of the request. She said that her mother (appellant) appeals to people in any way she can; that, superstition or not, the Code should not be violated, and that the tree logs were requested as they were about to be hauled away as trash MOTION: Commissioner Ng moved to close the public hearing The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and it was so ordered without objection by Chairman Clark Code Enforcement Officer Pollard advised that the Street Tree Permit was just recently obtained by the applicant He explained that Street Tree Permits are issued to allow an adjacent property owner to cut a tree in the public right-of-way and that Staff had not verified the existence of the replacement tree mentioned by the applicant Commissioner Alberio asked if the City would have granted a request to remove the tree in question if it would have been requested prior to the removal. Code Enforcement Officer Pollard replied that, according to the City's Maintenance Supervisor, such a request would have been granted. Director/Secretary Petru noted the Public Works Department's primary concern was that tree removal may cause damage to public property. Code Enforcement Officer Pollard responded to a question from Chairman Clark that the 5 7% hardscape overage equates to 55 48 square feet Director/Secretary Petru clarified that there are a number of legal non -conforming driveways in the subject neighborhood Commissioner Franklin related that he resides at 15 Oceanaire Drive, that he is personally acquainted with the appellant and that it was his understanding after speaking to the City Attorney there would be no conflict of interest with his participating in the consideration of this matter Commissioner Franklin contended that the configuration of the applicants' property was not unique and did not justify the driveway; that the amount of excess hardscape for other properties in the area is merely speculation on Staff's behalf, that none of the properties in the area behind Coveview Drive have circular driveways; that over 20 people protested the driveway, which could mean that they felt it created an adverse impact, that the St4ff findings cannot be supported by facts; and that the appellant made no effort to address neighboring residents' concerns He said he could not support the Staff recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 24 Commissioner Ng related her understanding that the purpose of the applicant's new driveway appears to be for parking, so the grass strip down the middle should not be counted as landscaped area She felt that the driveway design impacted the neighborhood Commissioner Whiteneck observed that very few, if any, homes in close proximity to the subject property have circular driveways However, he stated that this fact should not have much impact on this decision Commissioner Cartwright commented on the difficulty of cases involving neighbors who are against one another He pointed out that there is nothing the City can do about the tree which was removed. Relating his support of the Staff recommendation for approval, Commissioner Cartwright expressed his feeling that property owners have the right to improve their properties in almost any manner consistent with the City Code and so as not to create a hazard He stated his understanding that the driveway appears to be consistent with others in the neighborhood and offered his opinion that it makes the appearance of the property more visually interesting. Commissioner Albeno agreed with Commissioner Cartwright's comments. He felt the number of circular driveways in the neighborhood should not impact this decision and he expressed his support of the request. Commissioner Vannorsdall said he had no problem driving through the driveway his own very large vehicle. He noted that the removal of 5 7% overage would have minimal impact and stated his support of the Staff recommendation Chairman Clark echoed the comments of Commissioner Vannorsdall with regard to the minimal impact of removing the 5.7% overage He supported the Staff recommendation MOTION. Commissioner Alberio moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to allow a 5 7% decrease in the minimum 50% landscape requirement within the front yard setback area to allow the installation of a semi -circular driveway and other hardscape at 54 Oceanaire Drive. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed by a 5-2 majority roll call vote. Ayes Commissioners Albeno, Cartwright, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck and Chairman Clark. Noes Commissioners Franklin and Ng Absent None. Abstain None Explaining his dissenting vote, Commissioner Franklin said he understood that the removal of the driveway overage would be negligible; however, he disagreed with the findings in the Staff Report, particularly Nos 1, 2 and 4. PLANNING COhMSSION June 25, 1996 25 Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period from the date of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS 5_ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 177 - REVISION - Mr. Robert Foster, 6100 Via Subida Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. Mr. Scott Vanufsky,1147 Manhattan Avenue, Suite 311, Manhattan Beach, 90266, related his agreement with the Staff recommendation for an approval as conditioned. MOTION: Commissioner Franklin moved to approve the Staff recommendation to approve Conditional Use Permit No 177 - Revision - as conditioned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and it was so ordered without objection. ADJOURNMENT At 11.55 P.M. the meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 9, 1996, 7.00 P,M. PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 26