Loading...
PC MINS 19961126•� � APPROVED 01/28/97 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 00 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Recording Secretary Atuatasi ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and Chairman Clark. Absent: Commissioner Alberio (excused) Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Pfost, Assistant Planners de Freitas and Fox, Code Enforcement Officer Pollard 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 Cartwright, and there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Principal Planner Rojas distributed 1) a memorandum from Commissioner Franklin regarding the Minutes of October 22, 1996, 2) updated blueprints and a letter regarding Agenda Item No 4, and, 3) one letter regarding Agenda Item No 6 Commission Chairman Clark reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minus of October 22, 1996 Commissioner Franklin requested that page 7, paragraph 2 be modified to read as "5888 Mossbank Drive." Commissioner Cartwright requested that page 7, paragraph 5 be modified to read as "with all of these " Commissioner Cartwright requested that page 8, paragraph 7, line 2 be modified to read as "eleven and a half feet.. " and line 3 be modified to read as "encroach at eleven feet." He also requested that on 10, line 1 be modified to read as, "proposal was not from...." Commissioner Franklin stated that a major part of the discussion regarding Agenda Item No. 7 was omitted from the draft minutes and requested that the following paragraphs be inserted on page 15 after the first paragraph and should read as Paragraph 2 "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." Paragraph 3. "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 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." Paragraph 4. "He 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." Paragraph 5: "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 was consistent with the guidelines." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 2 Paragraph 6: "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." Paragraph 7: "This was agreed to by general assent of all Commissioners " Commissioner Whiteneck moved to approve the Minutes of October 22, 1996, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Franklin. Approved, (6-0). 2 Minutes of November 2, 1996 Commissioner Franklin requested that page 3, paragraph 13 be modified to read as "suggested that Staff conduct an annual review so that the homeowners association would not be subjected to the Sunset Provision." Commissioner Ng requested that page 4, paragraph 11, line 3, be modified to read as "Ms. Malin suggested " Commissioner Ng moved to approve the Minutes of November 2, 1996, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (5-0-1), with Vice Chairman Vannorsdall abstaining, since he was not present at this meeting. 3 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 stated that the Homeowners Association's request to continue the item to December 10, 1996 was due to the fact that the Adjourned Meeting, which had been scheduled for Saturday, November 16, 1996, had to be cancelled due to scheduling conflicts from the members of the Association Commission Cartwright requested that in the Staff Reports and in any other case where the project was described, that the word "manned" should be included in reference to the tract entrance observation booth. Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue the Public Hearing to December 10, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin, and there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 3 CONTINUED BUSINESS 4 Tentative Tract Map No. 24297, Grading Permit No. 1844, and Environmental Assessment No. 679; Al Mashouf, 5901 Clint Place. Associate Planner Pfost presented the Staff Report and noted that there was a letter of correspondence regarding this Agenda Item as Principal Planner Rojas had mentioned earlier during the meeting He stated that the letter was from an adjacent neighbor who supported the project. In addition, Associate Planner Pfost noted that revised parcel maps were distributed to the Commission with a minor change in the slope easement, since the parcel maps that were included in the packets and delivered to the Commission were incorrect. Associate Planner Pfost explained the background of the project and stated that the applicant submitted an application to the City in June 1995 to revise the location of a slope easement on the property and then subdivide the lot into two parcels Three months later, the associated Grading Permit application was filed In October 1995 the project was deemed complete and on April 2, 1996 the City Council approved Amendment No 1 to Tract 24423 for the subject parcel, thereby revising the location of the existing slope easement. The new location permitted the applicant to comply with the 3,000 square foot buildable area requirement required in order to proceed with the submitted Tentative Parcel Map application He noted that the easement revision had been filed with the County Recorder With regards to the lot split request, Mr Pfost explained that the applicant was proposing to subdivide the existing 39,757 square foot lot into two parcels to accommodate two single family homes Lot No 1, where the existing structures were located, would be 16,467 square feet in area, and Lot No 2, which was currently vacant, would be 23,290 square feet in area He also mentioned that an easement for access purposes over Lot No 1 would be granted to Lot No 2 as a part of the Tentative Parcel Map In addition, the applicant had requested for approval of the Grading Permit application to allow 340 cubic yards to create the level building pad on Lot No 2 and to construct the proposed driveway access to Lot No 2 and that a proposed 7'-0" high retaining wall would be constructed along side the property line adjacent to the proposed driveway Associate Planner Pfost concluded his presentation by stating that the proposed project would not create any significant impacts in the neighborhood and that the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance had been met. Therefore, Staff recommended approval of the proposed project. He also indicated that Staff recommended adding Condition No 25 to the P C Resolution which would read as, "prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall relocate the existing garage and remove the existing swimming pool so as to allow access to Lot No 2 " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26, 1996 Page 4 • n Commissioner Franklin inquired if geology studies had been conducted in the slope area. Associate Planner Pfost replied that the applicant was required to submit soils and geology reports as indicated in the conditions under Exhibit'B' of the grading conditions Commissioner Ng inquired if guardrails were proposed to be constructed at the top of the retaining wall for public safety purposes. Principal Planner Rojas replied that, if there was a walkway adjacent to the top of the retaining wall on the adjacent property, the applicant would be required to install a guardrail at the top of the retaining wall, as indicated in the Uniform Building Code Commissioner Ng suggested that Staff conduct further research with the Building and Safety Division on this issue. Principal Planner Rous stated that the Building and Safety Division would look into the matter Commissioner Ng stated that she believed a guardrail device should be installed on top of the proposed retaining wall to prevent injuries from occurring since the top of the retaining wall was 7' higher than the adjacent ground Commissioner Cartwright stated that the Public Works Department had estimated $2,200 for additional construction costs to extend Mossbank Drive if the easement were modified He then inquired if the City planned to extend Mossbank Drive Associate Planner Pfost replied that the Public Works Department indicated that there was no current need to extend Mossbank Drive However, he stated that, if Mossbank were to be extended in the future, the $2,200 was intended to cover any additional construction costs that would occur as a result of the modification to the slope easement Associate Planner Pfost stated that this was the reason the City Council had applied this condition to the Tract Map Amendment Commissioner Cartwright inquired if the funds for additional construction costs would remain with the City even if Mossbank Drive were not extended Associate Planner Pfost replied that this was correct and that the applicant had already submitted the $2,200 00 to the City PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 5 Chairman Clark called for any speakers on the item Recording Secretary stated that there were no requests to speak for this item. Chairman Clark asked that the applicant come forth to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Nor. Al A. Mashouf (landowner), 5901 Clint Place, thanked the Commission for reviewing the proposed project and stated that he and his wife had resided in their home for twenty-two years. He believed that it was not really necessary to obtain soils and geological studies for the proposed project, since the topography of the lot had remained the same for so many years Like the Commission, Mr. Mashouf stated that he too wanted to make sure that the lot was stable. He also expressed his concern regarding the need for guardrails to be added on the top of the 7'-0" high retaining wall and agreed with Commissioner Ng's opinion that there should some type of safeguard to prevent accidents from happening, especially with children. Mr. Mashouf stated that he was confident that the Building and Safety Division would require his project to comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Commissioner Franklin moved to close the public hearing and accept Staffs recommendation, with modified conditions of approval, seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall. Prior to roll call vote, Principal Planner Rotas clarified that the Development Code would require the applicant to apply for a Minor Exception Permit and a Fence, Wall, and hedge Permit if guardrails were to be added to the 7'-0" high retaining wall. Commissioner Franklin asked Staff to repeat the main conditions to be modified. Associate Planner Pfost replied that 1) the guardrail was a requirement and that the applicant would need to obtain approval of the Minor Exception Permit and Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit in order to satisfy this requirement, 2) the applicant conduct a soils investigation prior to recordation of the Final Map; and, 3) the applicant relocate the garage and remove the swimming pool in order to allow access to Lot No 2 The motion was passed by a unanimous roll call vote, (6-0). Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period from this date PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 6 5. Variance No. 414; Beth Zaccaro, 4338 Exultant Drive. Code Enforcement Officer Pollard briefly presented the Staff Report and stated that in August 1995 it was brought to the City's attention that a possible illegal accessory structure had been constructed with the side yard setback area of the subject property Mr Pollard stated that the landowner, Mrs. Beth Zaccaro, was advised of the structure's location within the side yard setback area, and that two options were available to her in order to bring the property into compliance with the Code 1) remove the structure; or, 2) obtain approval of a Variance application to allow the structure to remain in its existing configuration. Mr Pollard explained that the applicant stated the structure was built during the 1950's (before the City was incorporated and the lot was subject to County zoning regulations), and that an application was not required at that time to maintain less than a five foot side yard setback for an accessory structure Based on the current landowner's assertions, Mr. Pollard contacted Staff from the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission who indicated that during the County's jurisdiction over the Seaview Tract, interior lots were required to maintain side yard setback areas that was not less than five feet or 10% of the average lot width, not to exceed five feet. Therefore, the minimum setback on the subject would have been five feet for the subject property. The application for Variance No. 414 was submitted to the Planning Department in August 1996, but Staff deemed the application incomplete in September 1996. One week later, the applicant had submitted additional required information and the application was then deemed completed. Mr Pollard concluded his presentation of the Staff Report by stating that Staff was unable to make the necessary findings to support the Variance request since the lot was not unusual in size, shape or configuration In addition, the accessory structure created an adverse visual impact from neighboring properties and impaired the coastline and ocean view of the property located adjacent to the accessory structure Therefore, Staff recommended denial of the Variance application Commissioner Cartwright inquired if there was any evidence from the adjacent neighbors regarding the view and privacy issues Code Enforcement Officer Pollard replied that there was a complaint received from the adjacent properties regarding privacy and view impacts and that Staff had taken photographs from these properties which were available for the Commission's review Commissioner Whiteneck asked if the structure was constructed after the City was incorporated PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 7 Code Enforcement Officer Pollard replied that the structure was apparently built before the City's incorporation. Commissioner Cartwright asked if there was evidence from the County of Los Angeles indicating that the structure was not approved for construction Code Enforcement Officer Pollard replied that there was no evidence had been provided by the applicant, but that he had contacted the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Department and spoke with a Staff member who Indicated that prior to the Incorporation of the City, the County Code would not have allowed an accessory structure to be constructed in the required side yard setback area. Commissioner Cartwright asked about the purpose of the side yard setback area. Code Enforcement Officer Pollard replied that the purpose of the side yard setback was to maintain open space area between the adjacent properties Commissioner Ng asked, If the applicant decided to rebuild the structure to respect the setback, would a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit be required Code Enforcement Officer replied that this was correct. Chairman Clark called for any speakers for this item. Ms. Beth Zaccaro (landowner), 4338 Exultant Drive, stated that if the Commission had any questions regarding the project, that Mrs Lorna Burrell would be glad to answer them on Mrs Zaccaro's behalf Ms. Lorna Burrell 32614 Coastsite Drive, stated that her family had been constructed buildings on the Peninsula for the past forty-four years She stated that she would be glad to clarify matters regarding the permits that were obtained for the property in 1957. Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms. Burrell if the structure in question was approved by the County of Los Angeles Ms. Burrell replied that she had no way of knowing, but was aware that the swimming pool had been permitted by the County Commissioner Franklin suggested that the Commission should allow the structure to remain as it currently existed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 8 Commissioner Ng concurred with Commissioner Franklin and stated that the structure had been in the same location for forty years and should be allowed to remain She stated that the adjacent neighbors did not complain about the accessory structure It would create a hardship for the owner to remove it. Lastly, she stated that the structure was in the landslide area Therefore, she felt that no unnecessary construction should be done. Commissioner Whiteneck stated that he would like to see the structure remain, since he did not feel that it was an interference to any of the neighbors Commissioner Cartwright stated that it would be an expensive effort to demolish and relocate the structure in the Landslide Moratorium Area. He also stated that there were no complaints from the neighbors and, therefore, believed that the Variance should be granted Vice Chairman Vannorsdall stated that it would not be a good idea to have the structure removed and felt that it should be allowed to remain in its' existing location Chairman Clark was in agreement with his fellow Commissioners and suggested that the Variance be granted Commissioner Franklin moved to close the public hearing and approve Variance No. 414 to allow the accessory structure to remain in its' current location and configuration. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and passed by a unanimous roll call vote, (6-0). Code Enforcement Officer Pollard noted that a revised P C. Resolution would have to be prepared for adoption since Staffs recommendation was to deny the Variance Chairman Clark stated that the P C Resolution would be adopted at the next regular meeting and that the 15 day appeal period would be effective from that date. wgqsM7 dA61I,[T/ ik"l4 At 8:35 P.M. there was a brief recess until 8:49 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no new public hearing scheduled for this agenda PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 9 NEW BUSINESS Principal Planner Rojas suggested that Agenda Item No 8 be considered before Agenda Item No 6, since this was simply a clarification to a condition of approval previously approved by the Commission The Commission agreed to consider Agenda Item No 8 at that time 8. Variance No. 406 - Clarification and Correction of Conditions; Monahan, 28236 Trailriders Drive. Assistant Planner Fox briefly presented the Staff report and stated that based upon Staffs review of the official record of the July 23, 1996 meeting, it was believed that the Commission's intention was to allow the applicant to exceed the height of the existing carport (9'-1 ") in order to provide a pitched roof on the new garage. Assistant Planner Fox concluded his presentation by stating that Staff recommended approval of the revised Exhibit'A' to P.C. Resolution No. 96-19 to allow a maximum ridge height of thirteen feet one inch for the garage, via Minute Order Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to clarify the condition of approval for Variance No. 406 regarding the height of the garage. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck, with Commissioner Ng and Chairman Clark abstaining since they both were not present at the meeting of July 23, 1996 and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (4-2), via Minute Order. 6 Conditional Use Permit No. 172 - Revision 'B'; California Water Service Company, 5837 Crest Road. Assistant Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that in October 1992, P.C. Resolution No. 92-60 was adopted which approved Conditional Use Permit No. 172 to legalize the nonconforming use of the property 5837 Crest Road by California Water Service Company Assistant Planner Fox stated that as a part of this same action, the Commission approved an addition to the existing office building and the construction of a new vehicle storage shed. On June 21, 1993, the applicant submitted a request for a revision (Revision' A') to have the previously -approved addition modified and enlarged. The revision was approved in August 1993 Mr Fox stated that the applicant recently submitted a request for a second revision (Revision 'B') to Conditional Use Permit No. 172 to have an existing underground gasoline storage tank removed and replaced with an above -ground tank. He noted that a Grading Permit was required, therefore, the application was deemed incomplete in September 1996. Mr. Fox also stated that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 10 applicant submitted additional information in October 1996 and that the application was deemed completed in November 1996. Assistant Planner Fox concluded his presentation by stating that Staff analysis determined that the proposed project would have no significant adverse impacts with the surrounding properties and therefore, Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to conditions Chairman Clark asked to clarify if the Fire Department had any concerns about the proposed project regarding potential fire hazards. Assistant Planner Fox replied that the Fire Department had standards that would apply to this type of project, such as setbacks and how far the tanks must be located from residences Mr Fox stated that the Fire Department had not informed Staff of any concerns regarding the proposed project. Commissioner Ng asked why the applicant was not replacing the underground tanks. Assistant Planner Fox replied that the applicant wanted to move the tank and pump out of the way since it was in the path of travel on the site. He indicated that there was also concern regarding a large reservoir at the adjacent property which had an underground storage tank that was believed to be leaking and would probably pose a threat to the water quality in the long term Commissioner Whiteneck asked if the protective walls of the tanks were large enough to support the total volume of gasoline Assistant Planner Fox replied that the tanks would hold approximately 2,000 gallons of gasoline Chairman Clark called for any speakers on this item. Mr. Don Jenson (applicant) 5837 Crest Road, stated that the reason for removing the underground tank and replacing it with an aboveground tank was so that it could officially monitored Mr. Sid Wielin. 16 Seaview Drive, stated that he was bothered by the fact that the proposed tank would be located above ground and that the fumes would travel downward towards his residence and other surrounding areas Mr. Evan Wood 20 Seaview Drive, stated that he was opposed to the proposed project and would like to see the tanks remain where they were PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 11 Mr. Brian Agnew. 25 Seaview Drive, stated that he was not supportive of the proposed project due to the fact that it was located at the edge of the slope and wondered if the soil was strong enough to support the tanks Chairman Clark suggested that additional information be pursued by Staff, such as possible revisions to the design of the tank, information on other existing above ground tank locations in the area, and research on which agencies regulate the tanks found at service station sites Chairman Clark moved to continue this item to January 14, 1997, seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, and passed unanimously (6-0). 7 Conditional Use Permit No. 23 - Revision 'BBB' and Grading Permit No. 1912; Frank Melton, 2950 Vista Del Mar Drive. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report and stated that in October 1996, the applications for the construction of a new 6,356 square foot single family residence with 1,106 yards of grading was submitted to the City. Assistant Planner de Freitas stated that in Staffs opinion the proposed project satisfied all of the Code's standards as well as meeting most of the criteria established in the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines. Assistant Planner de Freitas concluded his presentation and stated that due to the size, configuration, and location of the lot, a reduction in the amount of required open space and the additional grading were warranted due to the small size of the lot in comparison with other lots in the same tract, and therefore, the project should be approved, subject to conditions. Commissioner Ng asked how many lots in the Seacliff Hills tracts did not meet the 70% open space requirement. Assistant Planner de Freitas stated that he did not have that information, but noted that this lot was significantly smaller than most of the other lots in these tracts Commissioner Ng felt that since the subject property was less than one acre in size (i e , one third acre), that the size of the proposed home should not be compared to homes that had in fact been built on one acre sites She noted that the Seacliff Hills Guideline's requirement for open space on a downsloping lot was less restrictive than for other lots in the RS -1 zoning district, since the Development Code required a minimum of 75% open space She stated that a 13,771 square foot lot in an RS -1 zone would require a minimum open space amount of 10,328 square feet, compared to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26, 1996 Page 12 Seacliff Hills Guidelines of 70%, which would require a minimum of 9,639 square feet of open space The proposed project would provide only 7,849 square feet of open space, which she felt was too little Chairman Clark asked if there were any speakers for this item Recording Secretary Atuatasi replied that there were no speakers Chairman Clark asked the applicant to address the Commission Mr. Frank Melton (applicant) 2950 Vista Del Mar Drive, stated that the building footprint of the project was not 6,500 square feet of habitable area, but that it included 3,800 square feet on the main floor, a 700 square foot garage, and a large basement underneath Commissioner Ng stated that she believed that the proposed project was significantly out of compliance with the minimum the 70% open -space requirement. Chairman Clark asked how the proposed lot coverage compared with past approvals Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that he did not research all of the past approvals in the tract, but that he did review the last four or five similar cases, which all met the minimum open space requirement. Commissioner Cartwright asked how much the driveway contributed to the lot coverage calculation Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that the driveway was approximately 1,100 square feet in size and contributed about 10% to the proposed lot coverage area Vice Chairman Vannorsdall stated that the open space requirement was intended to prevent crowding between houses He inquired if the proposed rear yard set -back met the requirements Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that in most cases, the houses in the Seacliff Hills tracts greatly exceeded the requirements In this particular case, the rear yard setback averaged approximately 22 feet. Mr de Freitas noted that the minimum requirement for the tract was 20 feet. Therefore, the project was in compliance with this requirement. Commissioner Franklin inquired about visibility from the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26, 1996 Page 13 Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that the lot was located on a significant curve when coming up Vista Del Mar from Palos Verdes Drive East Since the house would be placed at an angle and would be significantly setback from the front property line, he felt that it would not be readily visible from the street Commissioner Ng stated that if the open space requirement was reduced, the residence would look too imposing as seen from Palos Verdes Drive East. Commissioner Ng stated that she was not in favor of the project as currently proposed, since it did not comply with the minimum open space requirement for the tract. Commissioner Cartwright moved to accept Staffs recommendation, seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall. The motion was passed by a roll call vote (5-1), with Commissioner Ng dissenting, via Minute Order. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period from this date. Staff 9. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1996. Commission The Commission has no requests to place specific items on a future agenda. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - There were no requests to speak from the audience ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6-0). N \GROUPTLANNINGTCMINNINI 1 26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26,1996 Page 14