Loading...
PC MINS 19961022CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 CALL TO ORDER Approved 11/26/96 The meeting was called to order at 7 04 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ng. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark Absent None. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru, Assistant Planner Fox, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved for the approval of the agenda as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Albeno, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed a memorandum from Commissioner Franklin for Item No 2 regarding the Wayfarers Chapel, one letter for Item No 3 from Rosalyn Stewart regarding Minor Exception Permit No 500, and, noted that a document for Item No. 6 regarding Conditional Use Permit No 82 - Revision 'A' and Encroachment Permit No 26 had been delivered to the Commission on the previous Friday. She also distributed an excerpt from the final version of the View Restoration Permit Guidelines to be discussed with Item No 7 Commission Chairman Clark reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of September 24, 1996 Commissioner Cartwright requested that page 3, paragraph 7 be modified to read as, "must allow requests...". Commissioner Franklin requested that page 5, paragraph 12 be modified to read as, "and asked if..." Commissioner Ng requested to revise page 6, paragraph 1, line 1 to read as, "if Staff normally distributed information about contractors...". Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve the Minutes of September 24, 1996, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Ng. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2 Conditional Use Permit No. 185 et.al.; Wayfarers Chapel, 5575 Palos Verde Drive South. Director/Secretary Petru noted that when it was time to prepare the Staff Report for this item, revised plans had not yet received from the applicant and that there were still outstanding geological questions which had been asked about the project by the Commission. She stated that the applicant had requested to continue the item to November 12, 1996 and that revised plans were recently submitted. The plans PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 2 a indicated a single story structure which was now smaller than the original structure it was replacing, due to the removal of the upper floor. Director/Secretary Petru stated that Staff believed the style of the re -designed building blended in much better with the existing facility on the site She also stated that the applicant was still proposing to construct a building approximately in the same location as shown on the previously proposed plans. Commissioner Alberio inquired if there were any changes in the setback Director/Secretary Petru stated that she did not recall the precise setback, but that building was still within the required side yard setback area. Commissioner Franklin inquired what the requirement for the setback area would be. Director/Secretary Petru stated that she would need to double check the Code, but that she believed that the Institutional zones called for a 25 foot setback from the side property line. Chairman Clark noted a memorandum from Commissioner Franklin regarding this item and asked if he could briefly review it for the Commission Commissioner Franklin stated, that in response to the letter received from Dale Hinkle, he thought that Mr Hinkle may have misunderstood the intent of the motion which required that a rigorous geologic analysis of the site be provided Commissioner Franklin recommended that the applicant be given additional time since he doubted that such an analysis could be completed prior to the next meeting Planning Commission Meeting on November 12, 1996 Commissioner Albeno inquired if the applicant's last time extension was okay. Director/Secretary Petru replied that Staff recommended that the applicant grant another time extension, since the plans were not submitted in a timely fashion. The applicant had agreed to extend the action deadline to November 12, 1996. Commissioner Franklin inquired if the applicant would be able to provide the analysis within this time frame Director/Secretary Petru replied that she was not aware if the applicant had submitted any new geology reports to the Building and Safety Division and also stated that Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 3 continued to provide the applicant with all correspondence and directions from the Commission regarding the issue of geology Chairman Clark requested Commissioner Franklin to remind the Commission of what the previous motion had requested of the applicant. Commission Franklin replied that the applicant was to provide a rigorous analysis of the geologic safety factor on the site and any degradation that may be caused by the construction of the proposed building Chairman Clark asked Director/Secretary Petru if the applicant understood what was being requested by the Commission. Director/Secretary Petru replied that the applicant did seem to understand, but the questions was whether or not the applicant was prepared to do the additional work. Chairman Clark inquired what would happen if the applicant declined to provide the information requested by the Commission. Director/Secretary Petru replied that the applicant would have the option to appeal this item to the City Council if the Commission denied the application. Chairman Clark directed Staff to convey to the applicant that additional geology reports must be submitted to the Commission for consideration and that a date and time for the information due should be given to the applicant, if they were inclined to pursue the application This being a continued public hearing, Chairman Clark called for any speakers on this item Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that she attended the 25th anniversary of the Wayfarers Chapel and met Lloyd Wright She mentioned that the solution to the problem would be to install a left-hand turn lane on Palos Verdes Drive South in front of the fire station She added that the Fire Department would be able to respond to fires more quickly utilizing the access west of Wayfarers Chapel. Ms. Larue stated that the building proposed for construction by the applicant had a landslide below it Ms Larue then stated that she agreed with Commissioner Franklin's opinion in obtaining additional geology information on the property from the applicant Chairman Clark inquired on the setback requirements PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 4 Director/Secretary Petru replied the Code under the Institutional zoning district requires that the setback along the property line should be 20' from the side property line However, there was another potion in the same chapter indicating that the Commission could require additional setbacks for structures, parking, and activity areas, if was determined to be necessary in a particular case. Chairman Clark moved to continue the Public Hearing as recommended by Staff to November 12, 1996, and directed Staff to convey to the applicant that a rigorous analysis of the geologic safety factor of the site and any degradation that may be caused by the construction of the proposed building was requested by the Commission. Chairman Clark also stated that a date for submittal of these items be provided to the applicant if they were inclined to pursue the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin, and there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). 3. Minor Exception Permit No. 500 - Appeal; Peter Von Hagen (applicant) 30763 Tarapaca Road, Rosalyn Stewart, et.al. (appellant.) Chairman Clark reiterated to the Commission that on Thursday, October 24, 1996 an adjourned meeting would be held to continue the Public Hearing and that hopefully the Commission would come to a decision on this item Since this was a continued public hearing, Chairman Clark called for any speakers on the item Lois Larue. 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that people wanting ham radio antennae think that they have a first amendment right to do so She encouraged the Commission to keep in mind the Colorado Case, which indicated that people did not have the automatic right to build 107 foot antenna, but it did allow them to build a 30 foot antenna Commissioner Whiteneck requested Staff to provide a map of the topography of the subject property at the next meeting on this item Commissioner Ng inquired if the City Attorney rely on the minutes or the audio tapes as the official record of the proceedings. Director/Secretary Petru replied that the City Attorney would rely on the adopted minutes as the official record of the proceedings rather than the audio tapes. She indicated that the minutes were very detailed and that Staff always tries to be precise, but did not go as far as preparing verbatim minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 5 0- 0 Commissioner Franklin admitted that he was most concerned about the lack of detail in the minutes He only agreed with the minutes, as prepared, on the basis that the tapes would be preserved for nine months Director/Secretary Petru stated that Staff preserves the tapes for thirty days after the minutes are adopted as required by the Brown Act. She stated that if a case became the subject of litigation or there was a written request from someone to produce a copy of the audio tapes then the City was required by law to keep the tapes for a minimum of two years Chairman Clark inquired if those tapes were preserved. Director/Secretary Petru replied, that they were being preserved for ninety days, as requested by the Commission. Commissioner Ng inquired if all the Planning Commission audio tapes were preserved. Chairman Clark replied only the tapes from the first public hearing for Minor Exception Permit No 500 - Appeal were being preserved. Assistant Planner de Freitas reminded the Commission to bring their Staff Reports for reference on the meeting of October 24, 1996 He also mentioned that additional correspondence regarding this item which was distributed by Director/Secretary Petru should also be brought as well Commissioner Franklin moved to continue the Public Hearing to October 24, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck, and there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). 4 Tentative Tract Map No. 24297, Grading Permit No. 1844, and Environmental Assessment No. 679:A1 Mashouf, 5901 Clint Place. Director/Secretary Petru stated that the applicant had requested an extension, since he would be out of the country for ten days and specifically requested a date of November 26, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22,1996 Page 6 Commissioner Whiteneck moved to continue the Public Hearing to November 26, 1996. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, and there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). 5 Variance No. 415 and Grading Permit No. 1898; Kevin and Fernanda Talbot, 5888 Mossbank Drive. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant was requesting to construct a single family residence encompassing 7,265 feet of building area and that approximately 6,400 square feet would be liveable He stated that the applicants were present to address their concerns to the Commission Mr. de Freitas noted that the proposed structure would encroach a maximum of eleven and half feet at the closest point and four feet at its furthest point away from the rear property line Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that severely sloping topography made up a majority of this property and that the limited useable area of the property restricted the applicants ability to meet the minimum setback standards The proposed structure would not have any adverse impacts to the surrounding it had been redesigned to a lower maximum ridge height and a smaller overall area He also stated that there was a minor error in the agenda regarding the grading application Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that the grading application satisfied all of the criteria required by the Commission when the lot was subdivided. Commissioner Albeno requested Staff to provide the grading permit application to the Commission for review Director/Secretary Petru explained that when the lot was subdivided a few years earlier, the Commission at that time made certain requirements on future developments and set parameters which would control the amount of grading to be allowed on the subject property She noted that the current proposal complied with all of these criteria Therefore, review by the Planning Commission was not required Commissioner Ng inquired about the amount of grading that was proposed. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied the total was 692 cubic yards of cut and 30 yards of fill. The driveway consisted of 180 cubic yards of cut and 220 yards of fill and these numbers fell within the parameters that were set forth back in 1989. Commissioner Franklin inquired if the current owners were aware of these prior conditions when they purchased the land PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 7 Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that the applicant and the architect were provided with the information when they first approached the City about the project. Commissioner Franklin asked Staff to relate the goals and purposes of setbacks, and particularly the rear yard setback. Director/Secretary Petru replied that the general purpose of the setback was to prevent homes from being close to one another for safety purposes ( fire, access, etc ) and provide a minimum of distance between buildings to preserve a sense of open space and to protect privacy Commissioner Franklin asked why the applicant's proposal was acceptable Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that given the unusual topographic circumstances of this property, very limited usable area existed on the lot. The required rear yard setback area further reduced the amount of area available to build the residence Assistant Planner de Freitas stated that there was approximately forty feet between the proposed resident and the structure on the lot above Therefore, the distance between the two homes would be greater than what was typically found in this zoning district. Director/Secretary Petru also added that, due to the topography, the encroachment into the setback would not have the same effect as it might on the adjacent lot if the two properties were flat and that it would not create a threat to privacy Commissioner Cartwright inquired if the prior house approved in 1992 encroached eleven and a half feet into the setback and if the proposed project before the Commission was requesting to encroach at eleven feet. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied the original home would have been a minimum of two feet from the rear property line and that the current proposal would be three and a half feet from the rear property line at the closest point. He also stated that the original approval was eleven and half feet from the rear property line at the furthest point and that this request would be eleven feet from the rear property line Commissioner Cartwright inquired if the current proposal was not from the rear property line than the one approved by the Commission in 1992 Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that it was further away from the rear property line, as well as the eastern side yard property line PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner Alberio inquired about the difference in the variance being requested now and the one granted in 1992 Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that the basic need for the variance was still the same, although the re -design of the residence had changed the extent of the requested encroachments into the required setback areas Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). Mr. Doug Leach, 119 West Torrance Boulevard #24, Redondo Beach, CA (architect), presented a graphic illustration to the Commission of the proposed residence in comparison with the previously approved residence The purpose of this graphic was to illustrate the mass reduction that had occurred between the house of 1992 and the proposed project. The ridge was about seven inches lower than it was then and the eastern portion of the house was one story over the proposed family room Mr Leach stated that the applicant had agreed to lower the chimneys down to a two foot minimum above the nearest ridge as required by the Uniform Building Code and suggested that the Commission also make this a condition of approval Mr. Kevin Talbot, 23330 Susana Avenue, Torrance, CA, stated he and his wife currently reside in the City of Redondo Beach and that they both were looking forward to moving to Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Talbot mentioned that he and the architect had notified the neighbors regarding the proposed project. Commissioner Whiteneck inquired if the architect was aware of any geology studies on the subject property Mr Talbot replied that a geology study was done in 1991 and approved by the Building Department. Commissioner Whiteneck inquired if this report would need to be updated and reviewed again by the City Director/Secretary replied that it would require updating and resubmittal to the City due to the age of the report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Dennis Schmidt, 5911 Clint Place, stated that he generally supported the project, but had only one request that the applicant lower the ridgeline at least two to three feet. Commissioner Cartwright inquired if Mr Schmidt had met with the owners of this property and discussed the Issue in an attempt to resolve the problem. Mr Schmidt replied that he had met with the landowner and that the concerns regarding height were discussed. Commissioner Ng moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. As there was no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). Commissioner Ng inquired if the grading involved with the proposed project was different than the previously approved project Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that the amount of grading had changed since the scope and project was different. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall Inquired if there was more soil export involved with the current project, as compared to the previous approval Mr Leach replied 622 cubic yards of soil export would be required for the current project Chairman Clark stated his observations of the proposed project and believed that this was an improvement over the previous approval. He also stated that he did not believe that any view impairment would be caused by the roof line of this house Commissioner Whiteneck moved to accept Staffs recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Prior to roll call vote, Chairman Clark suggested that the motion should include an amended condition to reduce the height of the chimneys in accordance with the minimum Uniform Building Code. Both the maker and seconder to the motion agreed with this amendment. The motion was passed by a unanimous roll call vote, (7-0). Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period from this date PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22,1996 Page 10 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 44 P M there was a brief recess until 8 54 P M when the meeting reconvened 6 Conditional Use Permit No. 82 - Revision 'A' and Encroachment Permit No. 26; The Island View Homeowners Association, c/o Trish Malin, 43 Santa Catalina Drive. Assistant Planner Fox presented the Staff Report. He stated that City Council had adopted a resolution to vacate a portion of the Whitley Collins Drive and that a public hearing for that vacation was scheduled to be held on December 3, 1996 He mentioned that the proposed project consisted of modifications to both entry points to the tract and that there would be a 96 square foot, 12 foot tall tract entrance observation booth installed at San Clemente Place It would be a manned booth, but there would be no gates, stop signs, or other traffic control devices at this point. At Whitley Collins Drive the proposal would be to vacate a portion of the street to make it a private street. Gates would be placed in the abandoned right-of-way with modifications to the median and also a provision made for unobstructive pedestrian access Commissioner Ng asked why this was a revision rather than a new Conditional Use Permit application Director/Secretary Petru replied that the conditional Use Permit was required when the tract was originally subdivided, since it was a Residential Plan Development. Since the current proposal represented a change to that original approval, a revision to the Conditional Use Permit was required Commissioner Franklin inquired if there was a discussion regarding the preservation of a pedestrian path at the San Clemente entrance and whether there would be any signs indicating that vehicles were not required to stop Assistant Planner Fox replied that there was no proposal to provide any signs at San Clemente Place and as far as pedestrian access was concerned that there was no proposal to include any at this entrance Commissioner Cartwright stated that he understood the observation booth was to be manned and that the purpose was to monitor traffic going in and out of the tract and to provide information He inquired what "monitoring" would accomplish Director/Secretary stated that it was Staffs understanding that if an emergency situation arose, the person in the observation booth would notify the police department. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 11 Commissioner Cartwright inquired about the remaining streets within the development and whose responsibility it would be to maintain them Assistant Planner Fox replied all the streets within the community would remain public, with the exception of the short section on Whitley Collins Drive Commissioner Cartwright inquired about the location of the observation booth and if the City would be liable for the placement of such a structure in the public right-of-way Assistant Planner Fox replied that the conditions of approval required a number of indemnifications, hold harmless agreements, and covenants, wherein the Association would agree to accept liability for the observation booth and walls placed in the public right-of-way Commissioner Ng inquired that, if City Council approved the vacation of Whitley Collins Drive, would it be part of Island View's common open space area and would the gate be located there Assistant Planner Fox replied yes. Commissioner Ng inquired that, if City Council did not approve the request, would Island View be able to install a gate on Whitley Collins Drive Assistant Planner Fox replied that the Association would not be able to place a gate on Whitley Collins, because it would still be a public street. Chairman Clark declared the public hearing as open. Ms. Trish Malin, 43 Santa Catalina, representing the homeowners of Island View, provided to the Commission a document which described the Association and what they were requesting. The document also furnished crime statistics, demographic information, and a plot plan Ms Malin stated the main purpose for the proposed project was that the homeowners would like to maintain and enhance the quality and fabric of their community and properties Commissioner Albeno inquired about the population of the community. Ms. Mahn replied that there were approximately 300 residents in the tract. Commissioner Franklin expressed his concerns regarding pedestrian safety and about the proposed wall that would be constructed towards the curb on San Clemente Drive, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 12 which would be five feet high He concerned that if there were an oncoming car coming from Crenshaw and a pedestrian turning the corner at the same time, it would cause a safety hazard Commissioner Franklin requested that an improvement for visibility be made. He also expressed his concerns about the gate and stated that it would be an intimidating factor and that this would not be an open community. He mentioned that he would not want to see people feel intimidated and suggested that conditions be made as follows; 1) the people working in the booth would be forbidden to stop people trying to enter the tract, and 2) that a sign would be erected stating that the streets were public and that there was no requirement to stop at the booth Commissioner Ng also mentioned her concerns for pedestrian safety. Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms Malin if the homeowners would oppose leaving the booth unmanned Trish Malin replied that the homeowners would be opposed to this idea Commissioner Ng stated that if the homeowners were not prohibiting people from entering the tract by installing the gates, this would still give them the impression of a private community She inquired if the homeowners thought of installing an observation booth at the entrance on Whitley Collins Drive instead of a gate. Ms Malin replied that it would be very expensive to monitor two entrances She noted that this was the reason the booth would only be manned during certain key times (such as evenings and weekends) and would be monitored by a video camera the rest of the time. Commissioner Alberio disagreed with the uses of a video camera. Chairman Clark complemented Ms Malin and the Island View Homeowners for the submission of their informative document. Ms Lois Lar _e. 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed her concerns regarding the former Unocal Gas Station located on the corner of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road She inquired as to who would be responsible for removing the toxic waste from the area and also stated that she disagreed with the idea of video taping people who entered the tract Mr. James Adams, represented the Unocal Corporation, stated that they had been working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board on investigating the gasoline release at the site and submitted all reports to the Water Board Mr Adams mentioned PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 13 that the Board had no objection to Unocal proceeding with its plans to clean up the site and Unocal had dust recently attempted to obtain a permit from the City to begin the first phase of an excavation of six feet to remove approximately 1,200 cubic yards of contained soil. Commissioner Albeno inquired if the gas tanks had been removed Mr Adams replied they had removed them and the underground storage tanks as well. Chairman Clark stated due to the complexity of this case, he suggested that the Commission continue this matter and take a field trip to the Island View Development to view the project prior to making a decision Mr Pervaiz Lodhie 14 San Clemente, stated he owned property in the tract and mentioned his purpose for moving into the community He stated that his main concern was the safety of his and other children playing when oncoming vehicles enter the tract at unusual speeds Chairman Clark moved to continue this item to an Adjourned Meeting to conduct a fact finding field trip at the Island View Tract on Saturday, November 2, 1996 at 3:00 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Franklin, (7-0). Commissioner Franklin inquired about the legal issues of the video cameras and requested Staff to obtain written opinion from the City Attorney The motion was passed by a unanimous roll call vote, (7-0) NEW BUSINESS 7. Height Modifications Guidelines: City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Director/Secretary Peru requested that the Commission review the draft Height Modification Guidelines and provide Staff with direction regarding revisions to the document, so that they be made to be presented to the City Council for adoption Commissioner Franklin stated on page 13, last paragraph, line three should read as "an existing view, and/or (b) the.." Commissioner Ng stated on page 8, paragraph W, line one should read as "from the street of access " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1896 Page 14 Assistant Planner de Freitas stated that on page 5, paragraph 2 the City Attorney advised Staff to rewrite paragraph 'B' to state as follows, "the viewing area is located in the part of the structure that constitutes the primary living area of the house which is in the living room, dining room, family room, or kitchen However, the viewing area maybe located in the master bedroom if the view is not taken from one of the rooms in the primary living area and the master bedroom is located on the same story of the house as the primary living area " Commissioner Franklin was concerned about the definition of "Significant View Impairment", and read the following paragraph as a suggested replacement or addition to the paragraph in the proposed guidelines "The term "significant" in the phrase "Significant View Impairment" is defined to be a subjective term that is to be interpreted by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, the members of the Planning Commission or the members of the City Council as appropriate to the action being taken, and on a case by case basis In making its determination, the determining body shall consider both quantitative and/or qualitative values, guided by the Goals and Policies of the City's General Plan " Commissioner Franklin also noted that qualitative values need not be quantitative in nature, and may consider the extent to which an item of concern aesthetically clashes with its surroundings and in so doing becomes an important factor to consider Commissioner Cartwright and Chairman Clark were reluctant to change the wording in the proposed guidelines because doing so would require another iteration with the City Attorney and City Council, and they wanted to move this item as expeditiously as possible There was general agreement, however, that the above wording is consistent with the guidelines Commissioner Franklin agreed to not pursue adding the above paragraph to the guidelines. Instead, he requested that they be recorded in the minutes as representing the consensus of the Commission as being consistent with the guidelines, and to serve as a part of the guidelines in future deliberations of the Planning Commission This was agreed to by general assent of all Commissioners Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve the draft Height Modification Guidelines, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Ng, and there being no objection it was ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 15 001 -.1 :111 :2 W-,T*J Staff 8. Pre -Agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting o Tuesday, November 111996 Commission NONE COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ADJOURNMENT At 10:50 P.M. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adjourn the meeting to an Adjourned Meeting on Thursday, October 24, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and was passed unanimously, (7-0). N \GR0UPXPLANN1NGXPCM1NX0CT22 96 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 22, 1996 Page 16