Loading...
PC MINS 19971028• APPROVED JANUARY 2 1998 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 07 P M by Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Senior Engineer Allison ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Clark, Ng, Slayden, Vice Chairman Whiteneck, and Chairman Vannorsdall Absent: None Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, Associate Planner Pfost, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Ward, Senior Engineer Allison and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Vannorsdall moved to reorder the items for discussion in the following order: 1) Agenda Item No. 8 (General Plan Consistency Determination); 2) Agenda Item No. 5 (Height Variation No. 846); 3) Agenda Item No. 4 (Reconsideration of Grading Permit No. 1933); 4) Agenda Item No. 6 (Conditional Use Permit No. 151 - Revision 'C'); 5) Agenda Item No. 7 (Appeal of the Director's Decision regarding the Potential Revocation of Site Plan Review No. 7900 and Suspension of Grading Permit No. 1929); 6) Agenda Item No. 11 (Planning Commission Memoranda to City Council); 7) Agenda Item No. 10 (General Plan Ad Hoc Committee; 8) Agenda Item No. 9 (Planning Commission Rules and Procedures; and, 10) Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, (Minutes of August 14, 25, and September 21, 1997) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed: 1) three letters of correspondence from Dr. Jordan, Mr. & Mrs. Reynolds, and Mr. Larue regarding Agenda Item No. 4; 2) a revised copy of the resolution pertaining to Agenda Item No. 5; a letter from Mr. Alley regarding Agenda Item No. 6; 4) a revised copy of the resolution and three items of late correspondence from Mr. George, Ms. Merrill, and Ms. Papps regarding Agenda Item No. 7; and, 4) revised draft copies of the Planning Commission memorandums regarding Agenda Item No. 11. Commission Commissioner Ng reported on her attendance at the 'Livable Communities' seminar held October 9, 1997 in Manhattan Beach and stated that she would provide Staff with materials from the seminar to photocopy and distribute to the Commission. Commissioner Cartwright reported on correspondence that he received from Dave Larue and Jeff Richards regarding Agenda Item No. 4. The other Commissioners confirmed that they had received the same communications. At this time, Agenda Item No 8 was considered. NEW BUSINESS 8. General Plan Consistence; Sanitary Sewer Easement on Lot No. 8 of Tract No. 20856, 30764 Tarapaca Road. Senior Engineer Allison presented the Staff Report and stated that a portion of a sewer line adjacent to Tarapaca Road was damaged by ground movement due to heavy rains in April 1995 Mr Allison stated that the damaged sewer line serviced the EI Prado Tract (#20856), but that through a point effort between the City and the County a replacement had been designed Once construction commenced on the new sewer line, a portion of the existing sanitary sewer easement parallel the east property line of the subject property was no longer necessary for since the new alignment ran through Friendship Park and connected to the existing sewer line on Rue Le Charlene Mr Allison informed the Commission that the Council had adopted a Resolution of Intention declaring to vacate the easement. Mr. Allison informed the Commission that according to the adopted Council Resolution (#90-93), the next step in the vacation process was Planning Commission Minutes October 28, `1997 Page 2 for the Commission to make a determination if the proposed vacation was consistent with the City's General Plan. Staff recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that the proposed easement vacation was consistent with the General Plan since the easement was no longer necessary to provide sanitary sewer services for this area of the community Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Recording Secretary Atuatasi replied that there were none Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commissioners if they desired to discuss this item. The Commissioners had no comments Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-57 forwarding a finding to the City Council for the proposed vacation of a sewer easement at 30764 Tarapaca Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed by acclamation, (7-0). Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. At this time, Agenda Item No. 5 was considered. PUBIC HEARINGS 5. Height Variation No. 846 Mark & Kathy Amstock, 24 Avenida De Azalea. Chairman Vannorsdall read aloud the applicant's request and Staffs recommendation for this item. Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed, (7-0). Commissioner Clark moved to open the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ng and passed, (7-0). Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Recording Secretary Atuatasi replied that there were none. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 3 Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commissioners if they desired to discuss this item. The Commissioners had no comments Vice Chairman Whiteneck moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark, and with no objections, Chairman Vannorsdall declared the Public Hearing closed. Vice Chairman Whiteneck moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-58, thereby approving Height Variation No. 846, subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed by acclamation, (7-0). Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. At this time, Agenda Item No. 4 was considered. CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Reconsideration of Grading, Permit No. 1933; Jeff Richards, 30764 Tarapaca Road. Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant submitted an application for Grading Permit No. 1933 to the City in March 1997. The request was for nine hundred forty-one cubic yards of grading for a new, single-family residence on a vacant, 3.01 acre lot at 30764 Tarapaca Road The Commission considered this application at the July 8, 1997 meeting and continued this item to an Adjourned Meeting on August 14, 1997 due to the fact that the Commission needed ample time to review the geotechnical reports pertaining to the subject site At that time, the Commission requested that the applicant consider modifying the structure in order to minimize impacts upon the unprotected view of Dr. and Mrs Jordan. Another concern that arose during that meeting was the fact that potential conflicts would arise with the above -ground electrical transmission lines along the southeasterly property line At the August 14, 1997 meeting the Commission conditionally approved Grading Permit No 1933 and the 15 -day appeal period expired August 29, 1997. Mr. Fox stated that at on August 26, 1997, during the 15 -day appeal period, two members of the Council requested that this project be agendized for the Council Meeting of September 2, 1997. After discussion at that meeting, it was the Council's decision to schedule the project for formal consideration at the September 16, 1997 Council Meeting The Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for further consideration at the first available meeting. Staff scheduled this project for Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 11997 Page 4 the Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 1997, but due to a request from the EI Prado's Homeowners Association to extend the consideration of this project and for Staff to conduct further research, the meeting was continued to that evening. Mr Fox ended his presentation by stating that based on the information presented in the previous Staff Reports, Staff believed that the necessary findings for the grading permit could still be made for the proposed project Staff therefore, recommended approval for the proposed project Commissioner Ng informed the Commission of her absence from the past two meetings of July 8, 1997 and August 14, 1997, but indicated that she had listened to the tapes and heard the Staff reports so that she could participate in the discussion of this item that evening. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed, (7-0). Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Mr. Jeff Richards, (applicant) 30764 Tarapaca Road, stated that he preferred to speak after all the other testimony had been given before the Commission Mr. Keith Ehlert, (engineering geologist) 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 195, stated that at the meeting of August 14, 1997 there were concerns raised by the residents regarding the location of the proposed project. Mr Ehlert stated to the residents and the Commission that the construction of the proposed home was not located on the landslide area and was in fact located above the head of the ancient landslide Mr. Clarence Mag nusen,(applicant's civil engineer) 4683 Majorca Way, Oceanside, CA, stated that the design of the private storm drain system would cause the surface water to flow directly south from the subject site and calculated that the installed drainage pipe would be six inches in diameter. He determined to increase the size to 12" in order to maintain the water flow Mr. Magnusen stated that all calculations were based on recognized criteria from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Ms. Rosalyn Stewart. (president of the Seacliff Hilltop Homeowners Association) 2903 Vista Del Mar, stated that the subject site was located adjacent to a secondary landslide and that the homeowners in the area opposed the construction of the proposed project due to the fact that this would impose a potential risk in the community. Ms. Stewart requested that the Commission deny the applicant's request Planning Commission Minutes October 28, `1997 Page 5 Mr. William Lawson, 2792 Vista Mesa, stated that he opposed construction of the proposed project since it was located very closely to the landslide area Mr Lawson stated that the geological reports provided by the landowner's geologists revealed probabilities and possibilities regarding the stability of the subject site which made him concerned about the overall stability of the property. Mr Dave Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that he also opposed the construction of the proposed project He stated that he had worked on the Portuguese Landslide since 1973, and had written term papers and his master thesis on this landslide Mr Larue was contacted by Mr John Jordan to review this issue and in doing so he checked to see if the geologist who conducted the analysis on the subject site utilized up-to-date equipment to determine the risk factor. Mr Larue stated that in general he agreed with Mr. Perry Ehlig that there were some significant concerns about the stability of the property. He was concerned that the data provided to the Commission, which he had not seen yet, indicated that the buildable area maybe located on ancient landslide area. Ms. Judith Webb, 2841 Calle Avenita, (representing the EI Prado Estates Homeowners Association) stated that they were very concerned with the construction of the proposed project She and the association believed that there would be a potential risk for the community should the development commence and therefore, requested that the Commission deny the applicant's request Mr. John Jordan, 30759 Tarapaca Road, stated that he was originally concerned about his view when the Commission first considered this item. But now, he was concerned about the surrounding neighborhood and community due to the potential risk of land movement if the applicant's request was granted to construct on the subject site He too was not supportive of the proposed project. Ms. Anita Reynold, 30745 Tarapaca Road, opposed the proposed project due the fact of the location of the proposed project maybe unstable She felt that the analysis provided by the geologist did not provide a great enough degree of certainty and therefore requested that the applicant's request be denied Mr. Keith Reynolds, 30745 Tarapaca Road, requested that the Commission place an additional condition on the applicant that he obtain a surety or indemnity bond that would indemnify the surrounding homes that are nearby the subject site Mr Reynolds did not support the proposed project At this time Mr. Richards returned to the podium for rebuttal. Planning Commission Minutes October 28,1997 Page 6 Mr Jeff Richards, 4246 Spencer Street, Torrance, CA, stated that he and the geologist had gone to great lengths in obtaining geotechnical studies for the subject site and felt very comfortable with the findings provided by these professional consultants. As quoted by Mr Keith Ehlert, he stated that the subject site was stable for construction provided that the proper drainage system and soldier piles were installed. Vice Chairman Whiteneck moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio. With no objection, the Public Hearing was declared closed by the Chairman. Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commissioners if they desired to discuss this item. Commissioner Slayden stated that the drainage issue was not a problem and agreed with the expert findings of the geologist and therefore, supported the applicant's request Commissioner Ng stated that most of the concerns were addressed such as, the sewer line, the ridgeline being lowered, the proposed project complied with fire safety standards, and that the design would provide a 1 5 safety factor. Her only concern was how the City would enforce the maintenance of the drainage system and the proposed drought tolerant plan landscaping. Commissioner Ng suggested adding to the conditions that a covenant be obtained by the applicant for maintenance of the drainage system and that a drought tolerant landscape plan be required as well Commissioner Cartwright stated that the primary issue at hand was the stability of the site After reviewing the studies provided by the consultants and listening to their statements, he believed that there was no evidence of an active slide area where the proposed project would be constructed He stated that the soldier piles and the tiebacks added to the structure were appropriate and that the drain issues were mitigated with the hold harmless agreement that the Commission wanted to add to the conditions Although the view issues were not completely resolved, there had been some compromise on this issue. Mr Cartwright stated that the location of the boundary line between the Residential Zoning district and the Open Space Hazard Zone had been resolved by the geology and echoed Commissioner Ng's comments regarding the covenant for the maintenance of the drainage system He therefore, supported Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Clark stated that the geologists claimed that there was no evidence of an active slide at the subject site. Mr. Clark stated that based upon the presentation of both written documentation and oral testimony and enhancement of the conditions of approval by including a covenant for the maintenance of the drainage system and Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 7 0 0 requiring the submittal of a drought tolerant landscape plan, he supported Staffs recommendation Commissioner Alberio stated that he walked the subject site thoroughly and was not comfortable with the construction of the proposed project in that area. He agreed with Mr. Dave Larue's findings and felt that the proposed project was not appropriate for the area because of the stability of the land and therefore, did not support Staffs recommendation Vice Chairman Whiteneck listened to the technical testimonies and agreed with their findings He supported Staffs recommendation. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that Mr Jeff Richard's proposed project would be constructed parallel to Mr Von Hagen's home on the abutting property. He felt that the geologists were correct with their analysis and echoed comments by his fellow Commissioners regarding the conditions of approval Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he felt a fire hydrant should be a requirement of the project and not an option Chairman Vannorsdall supported Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Ng moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-59, approving Grading Permit No. 1933 amended conditions of approval to require the landowner to submit a covenant agreeing to maintain the drainage system and to submit a drought tolerant landscape plan The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden, and passed, by a roll -call vote, (6-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:59 P M there was a brief recess until the meeting reconvened at 9.09 P.M. At this time Agenda Item No 6 was considered PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 151 - Revision 'C' and Addendum No. to Environmental Impact Report No 32: Pacific Heritage Development} Seab eeze project (Tract No. 45661). Associate Planner Pfost presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 8 9 0 requested to amend two conditions of approval regarding the building facade articulation and roof orientation. The applicant requested that all of the proposed two- story home be permitted to have a maximum of 70% of the second story width to be setback a minimum of six feet from the first story below. The setback area would be used as a roof area. Mr. Pfost stated that the applicant also requested that Lots 43 through 45 be permitted to have the main ridge of the structure parallel, as opposed to perpendicular, to Crest Road, due to the size and shape of the lots, the applicant was unable to fit a standard house plan on either of these lots so that the main ridge was perpendicular to Crest Road Mr Pfost concluded his presentation by stating that the proposed amendments would not have any significant impact to the proposed project or surrounding properties and therefore, Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit No 151 - Revision Oct Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed, (7-0). Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item. Mr Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, stated that he lived adjacent the proposed project and requested that the Commission review this project before taking action on this item He was very concerned about contours of the existing what was being requested by the applicant. Mr. James Norton. (applicant's architect) 15707 Rockfield Street, Irvine, CA, stated that he was present to answer any questions that the Commission had. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck. With no objection, the Public Hearing was declared closed by the Chairman. Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commissioners if they desired to discuss this item The Commissioners had no comments. Commissioner Clark moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-60 approving Addendum No. to Environmental Impact Report No. 32 for the project, and to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-61 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 151 - Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 11997 Page 9 Revision 'C' to modify the requirements for building articulation and roof orientation on certain lots in the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed by a unanimous roll -call vote, (7-0). Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period 7. Appeal of the Director'l Decision regaardingtil a Potential Revocation of Site Plan Review leo. 7900 and Suspension of Grading Permit No. 1929; Mr. James Robinson (appellant) 40 Oceanaire Drive, Mr. Walt Muzychenko applicant), 6 Moonmist Drive. Assistant Planner Ward presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant submitted his application for a Site Plan Review on July 30, 1997 for remodeling an existing single-family residence The applicant proposed to demolish the garage, approximately 1,160 square feet of the existing single -story residence. Staff completed review of Site Plan Review No. 7900 on August 2, 1996 and the stamped went into plan check on August 19, 1996 Mr Ward stated that the applicant then submitted an application for a Grading Permit on March, 4, 1997 while the Site Plan Review was still in plan check The Grading permit and was approved by the Director on April 24, 1997 Mr Ward stated that on September 9, 1997, the appellant and another neighbor contacted Staff and informed them of the full demolition taking place at 6 Moonmist Since the project description and approval did not include a full demolition, Staff conducted a field visit on September 10, 1997 and confirmed that this was so Staff contacted the Building Official to visit the site and issue a stop -work order On September 11, 1997 the Director sent a 10 -day notification for the applicant stating the intended action to revoke Site Plan Review 7900 and suspend Grading Permit No 1929 The Director, City Attorney, and the applicant met on September 16, 1997 As a result of the meeting, the Director decided not to revoke or suspend the permits, subject to conditions, and written notice of this decision was issued on September 23, 1997 Mr. Ward stated that the appellant's representative filed an appeal within the 15 -day required appeal period. Mr. Ward concluded his presentation by stating that Staff recommended denial of the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's decision to require a revision to Site Plan Review No 7900 rather than revocation and that Grading Permit No. 1929 should not be suspended. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 10 Mr. K. Doyle George (appellant's lawyer) One World Trade Center, Long Beach, CA, stated that the building permit for this application was revoked due to the fact that the applicant violated the conditions of the permit. Mr Doyle believed that the applicant acquired the lot with the intent of building a new home and decided to proceed with additional work (full demolition) not included on the original application submitted to the City in order to avoid certain City requirements. Mr. Doyle mentioned the fact that the applicant filed his building permit for grading after the effective date to the amendments in Proposition 'M' He stated that there was a basic legal issue at hand because Proposition 'M' went into effect immediately and therefore should have applied to the applicant's Grading Permit He felt that the applicant was aware of the change made in the Code and tried to avoid this process by submitting another revised set of plans. Mr Doyle, therefore,felt that the applicant violated the terms of the Building Code and that the applicant did not have invested rights under California law to complete the project under the original permits Mr. James Robinson} (appellant) 40 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he was a spokesperson for the Del Cerro neighborhood and thanked those who were in support of appealing this project He stated that the applicant desired to build a two-story flat roof home, which he and the other neighbors believed to be incompatible with the surrounding homes since it would impact the privacy of the nearby adjacent residents Mr Robinson felt that the proposed project would destroy the privacy of adjacent residents and lower the value of their homes He ended his testimony by requesting that the Commission revoke the applicant's permit for the Site Plan Review and the Grading Permit At this time Chairman Vannorsdall how many more speakers were left to give testimony. Director/Secretary Petru replied that there were thirteen speakers left including the applicant and his lawyer. Chairman Vannorsdall asked Director/Secretary Petru to call the names of those who requested to speak, in doing so the following speakers volunteered to relinquish their speaking time to Mr Robinson's previous testimony, Mary Cotter, Margaret Zinn, Peter Crough, Michael Cicoria, Barbara Welch, Robert Jones, and Susan Robinson Ms. Carolyn Moebius. 38 Oceanaire Drive, stated that she resided adjacent Mr. Robinson's property and that her property backed up to the applicant's property. Ms. Moebius was concerned about the incompatibility of the proposed project in the Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 11 surrounding area She strongly supported Mr. Robinson's action to appeal this project. Mr. Timothy Cotter. 57 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he opposed to the construction of the proposed project and also concurred with the previous testimonies regarding the incompatibility of this home with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Rein Kuhr, 39 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he objected to the proposed project He felt that the applicant's actions of good judgement. Mr Kuhr also found it strange that the landowner submitted revised plans immediately after Proposition 'M' went into effect Mr, Rick Kulis. 15 Coveview Drive, stated that his property was located at the intersection of Moonmist and Coveview Drive that he watched this full demotion take place on day-to-day basis. He stated that the applicant demolished the existing home including the foundation. Mr. Kulis too believed that the proposed project was totally incompatible with the surrounding homes and therefore requested that the Commission deny further requests from the applicant. Mr Shawn Mason. (applicant's lawyer) 1 Boardwalk, Thousand Oaks, CA, stated that the Director's decision for this appeal was appropriate Mr Mason stated that the applicant felt that the main structure was unsafe for use and therefore decided to demolish the entire structure. He stated that the applicant believed that if he would have submitted another request to allow full demolition of the structure the City would have approved it anyway Mr. Walter Muzychenko. (applicant) 6 Moonmist, stated that this was going to be his personal residence and that he had purchased the property in 1996 He also mentioned the fact that his occupation was to the commercial construction industry Mr. Muzychenko stated that the purpose for demolishing the entire structure was that the main structure was unsound. He assumed that the City's Building Division would approve the modifications even though he had not consulted with them first. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing and seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck. With no objection, the Public Hearing was declared closed by the Chairman. Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commissioners if they desired to discuss this item Commissioners Alberio and Clark both felt very uncomfortable with the applicant's judgement in this situation. They believed that the applicant should have informed the Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 12 City about the modifications in the plans and submitted the appropriate application before commencing the work. Therefore, they supported the appellant's request Chairman Vannorsdall and Vice Chairman Whiteneck had no comments. Commissioners Cartwright, Ng, and Slayden believed that the Director's decision for the proposed project was appropriate and therefore, supported Staffs recommendation to deny the appeal, thereby requiring a revised site plan review from the applicant and not suspending the Grading Permit. Commissioner Alberio moved to uphold the appellant's request to revoke Grading Permit No. 1929 and Site Plan Review No. 7900. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed by a roll -call vote, (4-3) with Commissioners Cartwright, Ng, and Slayden dissenting. The Commission directed Staff to bring back the revised resolution for this project at the meeting of November 11, 1997. Due to the late hour, it was the desire of the Commission to continue Agenda Item Nos 1, 2, 3 (Minutes of August 14, 25 and September 21, 1997) under the Consent Calendar; Agenda Item No. 9 (Planning Commission Rules and Procedures); Agenda Item No 10 (General Plan Ad Hoc Committee), Agenda Item No 11 (Planning Commission Memoranda to City Council) under New Business, and Agenda Item No 12 (Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of November 11, 1997) under Items to be Placed on Future Agendas to the meeting of November 11, 1997 With no objections from the Commission, the continuance of the remaining items on the agenda was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall, (7-0). COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items): None ADJOURNMENT At 12:26 A.M. Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Ng. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by the Chairman. N 1GROUPIPLANNINGWCMINIMIN10.28 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 13