Loading...
PC MINS 19970826CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 1997 • •: Approved 11/11/97 Q4D The meeting was called to order at 7 12 P M by Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALS.� The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ng. .• 11 Wof-11 Present Commissioners Alberno, Cartwright, Clark, Ng, Slayden, Vice Chairman Whiteneck, and Chairman Vannorsdall. Absent None. Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, Associate Planner Fox, Associate Planner Pfost, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. Chairman Vannorsdall moved to consider Agenda Item No. 5 (Conditional Use Permit No. 182 - Compliance) after Agenda Item No. 2. The motion was seconded and passed, (7-0). Director/Secretary Petru distributed two resolutions and two items of late correspondence from Jim Gordon and "The Concerned Bendigo Residents" regarding Agenda Item No. 3 (Height Variation No. 750 - Revision 'C' and Variance No. 350 - Revision 'B'); a memorandum from staff regarding additional conditions of approval and four items of late correspondence from Bill & Cindy Ruth, Muriel Titzler, D. E. Clark, and Maureen Griffin regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Conditional Use Pemit No. 185, Variance No. 388, Grading Permit No. 1793, and Environmental Assessment No. 676); and, a letter from Dr. And Mrs. John Jordan regarding Grading Permit No. 1933 which was not on that evening's agenda. `[► [000] ► ►�': • 1 •M 9 TV 1 • 11 • - • • 1 Associate Planner Fox indicated that the draft resolution presented that evening included all of the changes to the conditions and mitigation measures that the Commission had conceptually agreed to at the last meeting In Section 2 of the draft resolution language would be added to Mitigation Measure No 6 and Condition No. 17 to allow the service bay doors to be open from 5.00 P M through 7 00 P.M. for maintenance and moving vehicles inside the building as well as provide adequate ventilation during the clean-up process; in Section 3, Mitigation Nos 10,14,15, and 16, the wording will clarify where and when vehicles undergoing and awaiting services and employees' vehicles would be parked; in Section 4, Mitigation No 17 would include the prohibition of storage or display of vehicles advertised for sale; and, in Section 5, the applicant is required to comply with Condition No 6 to obtain the necessary permits from the Director of Public Works to replace the abandoned curb cut and driveway with full -height curb and sidewalk with 90 days of the Commission taking final action on this item. Mr Fox stated that Staff recommended adoption of the draft P.C. Resolution to memorialize the Commission's direction regarding the 6 -month review of Conditional Use Permit No. 178. Chairman Vannorsdall asked the applicant to approach the podium. Mr. Steve Saporito, 28732 Highridge Drive, requested that the Commission extend his hours of operation by one hour later in the evening, from 7,00 p m to 8:00 p.m. for servicing and moving of vehicles, and maintenance of the building, since it took longer to clean-up the building and he required additional time. Commissioner Clark moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-39, with the changes requested by the applicant to extend the hour of the service bay door maybe left opened from 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed (5-1-1) by a roll call vote with Commissioner Alberio Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 11997 Page 2 9 dissenting and Commissioner Ng abstaining since she was not present August 12, 1997 meeting. Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. -t M_. • •_ ait No. . N• &Iarrotta,. 1 • • • t Director/Secretary Petru briefly explained the Staff Report for Senior Planner Snow who was unable to attend the meeting that evening. She explained that Staff had prepared a draft resolution memorializing the Commission's conceptual approval of the project on August 12, 1997. Ms. Petru informed the Commission that there was one request to speak on this item. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated the General Plan for this City calls for the Commission to preserve the views on Palos Verdes Drive South She stated that the Commission was about to grant a request that will destroy the view on Palos Verdes Drive South. She stated that she strongly opposed this item Commissioner Clark moved to adopt P.C. Resolution Nos. 97-40, 97-41, 97-42, and 97-43 that would adopt a Negative Declaration and approved Tentative Parcel Ma No. 24546, Coastal Permit No. 134, and Grading Permit No. 1882, subject to conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed (5-1-1) by a roll call vote, with CommissionerAlberio dissenting and Commissioner Ng abstaining since she was not present at the August 12,1997 meeting. Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period At this time, Agenda Item No 5 was considered. • 1 ■ FIT, t • : • • (' • • Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that the Commission had recently approved a request by the applicant to install an outdoor seating/dining area at the service station. He stated that this request was appealed in May 1997 then withdrawn in July 1997 Associate Planner Fox stated that the applicant installed the Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 11997 Page 3 outdoor/seating/dining area, but has requested clarification of the compliance of the project with Condition No. 6 regarding the amount of landscape screening required. Mr Fox stated that Staff was seeking direction from the Commission in regards to the existing landscape screening for the outdoor seating/dining area and provided two alternative for the Commission's consideration as noted in the Staff Report. Chairman Vannorsdall asked the applicant to approach the podium. Mr_BaheM 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard, felt that seven potted plants as previously required by the Commission would be too many. He was concerned that these plants would grow larger and may block the view from the window of the convenience store to the street. Mr Myers stated that he installed what he felt were enough plants to provide screening for the outdoor seating/dining area and believed that he met the intent of the requirements Lois La a 3136 Barkentine Road, asked the Commission to give their full support to the applicant, since his business provided needed services for the Community She agreed with a comment that the Chairman made sometime ago about supporting local businesses in the City. Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Clark stated that he visited the service station, sat in the outdoor seating area and felt that the screening totally satisfied the intent of the Commission. Mr. Clark supported the idea of eliminating one plant container. Commissioner Ng supported Staffs second alternative of adding another potted plant, perhaps a Bird of Paradise, to provide adequate screening at the outdoor seating/ dining area. Commissioner Cartwright also visited the service station and felt that the applicant met the requirements regarding the landscaping issue Mr Cartwright believed that adding another plant would hinder circulation in and out of the seating area. Vice Chairman Whiteneck thought that the number of plants installed by the applicant was adequate and did not think it was necessary to add another plant Commissioner Alberio stated that his vote remained the same as before. Mr. Alberio believed that the applicant's business had expanded even more than what the original conditional use permit was approved for. Therefore he did not support the applicant's request Planning Commission Minutes August 26,1997 Page 4 Chairman Vannorsdall believed that the applicant used good judgement to provide adequate screening for the outdoor seating/dining area and therefore supported the applicant's request Commissioner Cartwright moved to modify Condition No. 6 to require only six potted plants around the outdoor seating/dining area. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed (5-2) by a roll call vote, with Commissioners Alberio and Ng dissenting. Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 7.50 P M there was a brief recess until 8 20 P M when the meeting reconvened PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation No. 750 - Revision 'C' and Variance No. 350 - Revision 'B';. Earl and Sharon Gantz, 3558 Bendigo Drive. Director/Secretary Petru stated that since this proposed project had a long history, she would briefly explain the Staff Report In June 1997, the applicant submitted application for the variance and the height variation The applications were for the additional existing square footage on the second story of the residence which was not originally approved by the Staff as part of Height Variation No 750 in 1992 and for the completion of a partially constructed garage that was nine inches closer to the front property line than was approved by the Commission through Variance No 350 in 1993 Director/Secretary Petru stated that both applications were deemed complete in July 1997 with an action deadline date of October 22, 1997. Ms. Petru summarized the history of the proposed project from September 1992 to the present, as indicated in the Staff Report She then discussed the fact that the primary area of concern was the compatibility of the finished structure with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff felt that, since the garage had been re -designed to look like the 1993 approved plans and Staff was recommending that a porch be added over the front entry and living room to mask the wall of the second story storage area, that the finished structure would be very similar in appearance with the original concept. Given this, Staff felt that the finding of neighborhood compatibility could be made In conclusion, she stated that it was Staff's opinion that the proposal before the Commission with the modifications suggested by Staff would satisfy all the criteria required to grant the revisions to the height variation and the variance Therefore, Staff recommended approval of the proposed project subject to conditions Planning Commission Minutes August 26,1997 Page 5 Commissioner Cartwright moved to open the Public Hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed, (7-0). Mr. Earl Gan#z,(applicant) 3558 Bendigo Drive, stated that his proposed project has had a very long and tedious history. However, he was anxious to complete his home and indicated that he would be glad to answer questions that the Commission had. Commissioner Ng asked Mr. Gantz if he was satisfied with the solutions proposed by Staff Mr Gantz replied that he was pleased with Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Slayden asked Mr. Gantz that if the project were approved that evening would he be prepared to proceed right away with the completion of the project Mr Gantz replied that he looked forward to proceeding immediately with the completion of his project Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Gantz if he felt that he had satisfied the neighbor's concerns. Mr Gantz replied that he believed he worked together with the neighbors to compromise and come to a final resolution Mr Gantz also requested that he be allowed to return to the podium for rebuttal. Chairman Vannorsdall replied that he would be able to return after all of the other speakers had completed their statements Mr. Jesse Nearete., (applicant's engineer) 4231 W 181st Street, Torrance, stated that he had been working on the project since January 1997 He felt that Mr. Gantz had made substantial changes to the project since the last proposal (Revision 'B') and felt that the project addressed the neighbor's concerns Mr. Jim�rdon, 3538 Bendigo Drive, displayed a copy of a decision from the Court of Appeals regarding the project Mr Gordon stated that he had followed this project for sometime and that his main concern was the appropriate procedures for planning approval by the City, as well as the procedure for reviewing and inspecting the physical construction of the residence. In the past, Mr Gordon had attended Council meetings and forwarded suggestions to the City Council regarding the appropriate procedures for planning approval for future projects in order to prevent this similar situation from recurring. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, `1997 Page 6 Mrs. Linda Gordon, 3538 Bendigo Drive, opposed the project and stated that a letter was provided to the Commission from the 'Concerned Bendigo Residents' dated August 10, 1997 addressing the concerns of the residents towards the project. Mr. ElliottA sp tem, 3525 Bendigo Drive, stated that it has taken four years for the applicant to pursue his request. He felt that it was time for the Commission to take control of the process and supported the applicant's request. Ms. Sharon Van aanc , 3559 Bendigo Drive, displayed a petition to the Commission signed by those opposing the project Ms Van Wagner stated that even after the lawsuits that have been filed by the applicant, he has never received a valid approval for his project She was not in support of the current project because it still did not comply with the City's original approval Cliff /an Wagner, 3559 Bendigo Drive, opposed the applicant's request and was very displeased with the Staff Report presented that evening Mr Wagner was not aware of the various alternative porch designs presented in the Staff Report and felt that it was unfair for the Commission to make a decision since all this information was relatively new to the neighbors Mr. BotstonT 3566 Bendigo Drive, also opposed the project since it was not compatible with the neighborhood He stated that the City was reluctant to proceed and make a determination on the project Mr Easton's main concern was that the City use the appropriate process to approve and carrying forward with a project. Mr`Steven Plakm 3572 Bendigo Drive, stated that Staff gave the Commission a cosmetic solution to solve a controversial case Mr Plakos stated that the neighbors were not pleased with the recommendations given by Staff and had put up with this monstrosity for years. He requested that the Commission conduct their jobs correctly. He stated that if there were legalities involved, it was because the applicant refused to fulfill his responsibilities. Mr Plakos requested that the Commission enforce the City's Code for this project. Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Cartwright stated that the testimonies given that evening were based on the legal history of this project which the Commission was not fully aware of He was also concerned that these residents had not been given a reasonable opportunity to review the latest alternatives presented by Staff The residents also testified that there were holes in the planning approval process Mr Cartwight stated that it would benefit the concerned residents, applicant and Staff to review the current status of the project, Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1957 Page 7 possibly conduct a site visit, continue this item to a date certain, and have legal representation at the next meeting in order to arrive at a resolution for this project. Commissioner Clark agreed that the City Attorney should be present at the next meeting based upon the testimony given that evening. He felt that the concerned residents should have an opportunity to review in detail the applicant's current proposal of the project Mr Clark also felt that a site visit would be helpful Commissioner Ng agreed with her fellow Commissioners on having the City Attorney present at the next meeting She stated that a continuance would give the neighbors a chance to review the different alternatives As far as the site visit was concerned, Commissioner Ng felt that since she had visited the site once before, it was not necessary for her to go again. Commissioner Slayden also felt that legal counsel should be present at the next meeting for this project. He felt that a site visit would be beneficial for both the neighbors and Commission in order to view the project internally and externally, and review the current modifications proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Alberio stated that he agreed that the City Attorney should be present at the next meeting, but stated that the issue that evening concerned the completion of the residence and not the legal history of the project Vice Chairman Whiteneck stated that many of the speakers had based their objections to the current project on the legal history of the case. Mr. Whiteneck was not concerned with legal objections, but was concerned with a resolution of the present situation Chairman Vannorsdall felt that there was no need to refer to the past of the project, but to move forward to resolve the situation. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that if Mr Gantz and the neighbors had gotten together and discussed this project five years ago, the Commission and members of the public would not be having to deal with this project now. Commissioner Alberio moved to direct Staff to arrange for a meeting at the subject site on a date certain to give the residents and Commission an opportunity to tour the inside of the structure and review the new alternatives for this project which were provided that evening. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed, (7-0) by a roll -call vote. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1997 Page 8 Commissioner Cartwright requested that the City Attorney be present at the next meeting Commissioner Albeno concurred with Commissioner Cartwright's request Chairman Vannorsdall stated that Staff would see if the City Attorney was available, or would need to send another attorney from her office. Director/Secretary Petru suggested that the Commission continue the public hearing to September 23, 1997, since the meeting for September 9, 1997 was too short of a turnaround for Staff to arrange for a site visit to the property Chairman Vannorsdall moved to continue the Public Hearing opened to September 23, 1997 and with the site visit date to be determined by Staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed, (7-0). Director/Secretary Petru indicated that once a date for the site visit was determined, Staff would send out a notice to all of the neighbors on Bendigo Drive. ' e : 0► 1440A There was another brief recess at 10.17 P M until the meeting reconvened at 10 30 P.M. ' • i • • 1 .. - if 1VMTqWr#W1:1:1KcT7TU ' - N Associate Planner Pfost presented the Staff Report and stated that the Commission first considered this item in July 1995 and since then it has been before the Commission a total of fourteen times due to the concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed structure with the existing buildings, the noise from the use of the amphitheater, and the geologic stability of the property. Mr. Pfost stated in April 1996 the Commission continued this item to September 1996 to allow the applicant ample time to prepare revised plan that were more compatible with the existing chapel design. The applicant requested to continue this item to October 1996 since they were still in the process of revising plans. In October 1996 the applicant was still not prepared and therefore requested that the Commission continue this item to November 1996 In November, 1996 the Commission reviewed the revised building design Mr Pfost stated that the Commission indicated that the revised plans were an improvement, but still had concerns regarding geotechnical issues pertaining to the site. The Commission Planning Commission Minutes August 26,1997 Page 9 continued this item to a date uncertain so that a qualified third party could determine what additional information would be necessary in order to determine the stability of the site. He indicated that the applicant had not done specifically what the Commission had asked for in terms of additional geology, but would be addressing the Commission that evening regarding what they did do and what their findings were. Mr. Pfost stated that the project description had not changed from November 1996 and that based on the reasons stated in the current report and the November 1996 report, Staff felt that the proposed project met the findings required for approval of the conditional use permit, variance, and grading permit. He also stated that potential impacts had been mitigated to a level of insignificance and stated that the mitigated negative declaration could be approved for the project. Mr. Dean Andrew (architect) 8118 Palos Verdes Dave South, stated that he sought additional information from Leighton & Associates regarding the geotehnical issues pertaining to the stability of the subject property as the Commission requested. Mr. Andrews stated that the consultants had reviewed the historical geologic data for the area as well as recent information gathered in conjunction with the adjacent Point View property and concluded that the project site was outside of the active Abalone Cove landslide area and the development of this land would have no effect on the active landslide. Mr. Andrews stated that the Chapel had improved the security system and hired a patrol to prohibit people from entering the site after closing hours. He felt that installing a fence around the property would make the general public feel unwelcome when they entered the site and asked that this condition be removed. Mr. Keith Ehlert, (applicant's geologist) 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, RHE, stated that he contacted two geologist in the area and asked if they would be willing to do a third party review. The two geologists suggested Dr Perry Ehlig, who was knowledgeable about this area of the peninsula. Mr. Ehlert stated that he and Dr Ehlig reviewed data and concluded that the Wayfarers Visitor Chapel Center site was not located on ancient landslide, but was located on bedrock. ML-BA-Rutt4 4 Thyme Place, was concerned with the amplified sound added to the existing amphitheater and requested that the Commission not support this He then presented a video tape to the Commission demonstrating a variety of sounds (i.e., chapel bell, boat, and other manmade sounds) which traveled up the hill and could be heard from his residence The video also showed the distance of his residence from the chapel. Mr. Ruth requested that the Commission not support amplified sound at the subject site. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1997 Page 10 Mr Jack Downhill.} 23 Vanderlip Drive, felt that the Wayfarers Chapel should be held to the same standards that apply to residences in the moratorium area and that full geology should be required Ms C"ne Gerrard_, 22 Narcissa Drive, read a letter to the Commission and presented a petition to the Commission with 50 signatures of residents opposing the proposed project due to the concern that the site was turning into an international commercial enterprise by virtue of becoming a "wedding mill". She was also opposed of the amplified sound in the amphitheater. Mr. David Ziarner� 18 Sweetbay Road, opposed the project since the expansion of the project would not serve the congregation, but would only promote the use of the site as a commercial business Ms. Maureen -Griffin, 5 Ginger Root Lane, felt that there was inadequate geology studies for the proposed structure on the subject site and therefore opposed the construction of the proposed project. Mr. William Muller. 24 Narcissa Drive, was concerned with the proposed sound system and stated that the amphitheater was located directly below his residence. He opposed the project due to the additional sound which would disrupt his peace and enjoyment of his property Due to the late hour (11:59 P.M.) Commissioner Clark moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to September 9, 1997. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed, (6-1) by a roll call vote with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. None. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1997 Page 11 M •1MN►`IJ,1:4i111 At 12:00 P.M. Chairman Vannorsdall moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by the Chairman. N 1GROURPIANNINGTCMINW1IN08 14 Planning Commission Minutes August 26,1997 Page 12