Loading...
PC MINS 19971125CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Approved 2/10/98 11*1^ The meeting was called to order at 7.00 P M by Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Clark. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Clark, Slayden, and Vice Chairman Whiteneck, and Chairman Vannorsdall. Absent Commissioner Ng (absent/excused). Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, Associate Planners Fox and Pfost, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Vannorsdall moved to consider Agenda Item Nos. 4 after Agenda Item No. 8. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Albeno and passed, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed reduced size plans for Agenda Item No. 5 (Conditional Use Permit No. 186) which had been received from the applicant that day. Commission I ki CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of September 9, 1997 Commissioner Cartwright requested that on page 13, paragraph 9, line 1 be modified to read as, "Commissioner Cartwright suggested that " and line 2 be modified to read as, "Commissioner Cartwright suggested that the hours...". 2. Minutes of September 23 1997 Commissioner Clark requested that on page 7, paragraph 7, line 1 be modified to read as, "the historical recalcitrance...". 3. Minutes of October 14 1997 Commissioner Clark moved to approve the Minutes of September 9 and September 23, 1997 as amended, and approve the Minutes of October 14, 1997 as presented. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed, (6-0). At this time, Agenda Item No 5 was considered CONTINUED BUSINESS 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 185, Variance No. 388, Grading Permit No. 1793, and Environmental Assessment No. 676: WaAa-rers Chapel, 5735 Palos Verdes Drive South. Associate Planner Pfost presented the Staff Report and stated that at the meeting of September 9, 1997, the Commission requested the applicant to conduct a boring on the subject site and provide a report to the City's Geotechnical Consultant for review Mr Pfost stated that the applicant had conducted the boring, however, the report had not been submitted to the City in time for the Geotechnical Consultant to provide a response for incorporation into the Staff Report for the meeting of November 11, 1997 The Commission continued the public hearing on the project to the November 11th meeting to allow the applicant time to prepare the necessary boring and reports Mr. Pfost stated that on November 11, 1997 the applicant requested to continue the item to November 25, 1997 to allow additional time to prepare the geologic reports Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 2 J Mr. Pfost stated that the project was reviewed by the applicant's geologist and the City's geotechnical consultant, and Dr. Perry Ehlig All three agreed that the subject site for the Visitor's Center is safe to build on and that the project will not impose a significant impact to the site or neighboring sites Mr Pfost concluded his presentation by saying that Staff felt that the revised protect was an improvement over the initial proposed project and that it met all the findings required for the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Grading Permit Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Lois Large, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that the Wayfarers Chapel was located on a landslide and that the active portion of the landslide was expanding. She also mentioned that the parking lot was collapsing Lois did not concur with the findings of the geologists and requested that the Commission deny this project Mr. Bill Griffin, 5 Gingerroot Lane, was concerned about the moratorium and Abalone Cove Landslide areas. He believed that these areas were still active and opposed to the construction of the proposed project because of potential risks to the community. Mr. Bill Ruth 4 Thyme Place, stated that his main concern was amplified noise from commercial activities that would effect the neighborhood. He stated that the Commission had not modified the noise requirement, but instead increased the permissible hours of operation (from 2 days to 7 days a week) Therefore, Mr Ruth requested that the Commission amend the wording of Item No 14 in the Conditions of Approval on page 6 of Exhibit 'A' Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed, (6-0). Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commissioners if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Slayden stated that the Commission had spent several hours reviewing all the facts and findings for the proposed project He remembered at the last meeting the only concern was the geology issues of the subject site He stated that the Chapel was one of the City's assets and felt that the Visitor's Center would be an improvement to the Chapel Mr Slayden supported Staffs recommendation Commissioner Cartwright agreed that the Chapel was an asset to the community. He stated that there was no reason why the proposed project should not be approved based on the finding of the geologists who all stated that the subject site was stable and safe to construct on Mr Cartwright stated that most of the concerns that were raised at the previous meetings were mitigated and therefore saw no reason to deny Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 3 the proposed project Commissioner Clark was concerned about the operation of the Visitor's Center in the long term. He felt that the nature of the operation could possibly change in the future and could become an attractive nuisance Mr Clark believed that the City should ensure that over time the Visitor's Center does not become over used and stated that the Commission should consider this issue before making a decision on the project Commissioner Alberio was still concerned with the subject site and felt uncomfortable with the thought of approving construction of a Visitor's Center in moratorium area. Mr. Alberio opposed the approval of the proposed project Vice Chairman Whiteneck was concerned with the geologic issues regarding the subject site, but felt comfortable with the findings made by the geologists. Mr Whiteneck concurred with Commissioner Clark's comments from the previous meeting regarding monitoring the noise levels and the activity on the site to make sure that it does not disturb the community. Chairman Vannorsdall agreed with some of his fellow colleagues in terms of what was said regarding the stability of the subject site Chairman Vannorsdall stated that there could be some improvement regarding the retaining wall to be erected near Narcissa Drive and also felt that the drainage system would be an improvement for the Chapel, driveway, and Visitor's Center As far as the noise level was concerned, he too agreed with Commissioner Clark's statement regarding a periodic inspection at the site Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-67; thereby approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 676, adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-68; thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 185, subject to conditions; adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-69; thereby approving Variance No. 388; and, approved Grading Permit No. 1793, via Minute Order. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed by a roll -call vote (5-1), with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Height Variation Permit No. 844 and Variance No. 428; Kristi/Comers 30016 Avenida Classica. Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 4 9 LI Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed, (6-0). Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this Item Mr. George Shaw, (applicant's architect) 23727 Hawthorne Boulevard, stated that his clients concurred with the Staff Report except for one condition in the draft resolution for the height variation (page 5, Condition No 3) regarding the translucent glass for the windows Mr. Shaw felt that since the adjacent neighbor's residences on both north and south were located a significant distance from the proposed addition, there would be no problem as far as privacy and view were concerned Therefore, he requested that this condition be eliminated. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. 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 Alberio agreed with the applicant's architect and stated that the conditions should be modified to eliminate the requirement for translucent glass Vice Chairman Whiteneck and Commissioners Clark and Cartwright had no comments Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-70; approving Height Variation No. 844 subject to conditions and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97-71 approving Variance No. 428. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck and passed by a roll -call vote, (6-0). Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. 7. Grading Permit No. 1950 - Appeal; Gene & Leonna Price [applicants], Tom & Francine Accetta (appellants], 3434 Newridge Drive. Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant submitted an application for a Grading Permit on May 30, 1997 to the City The request was for four hundred forty cubic yards of grading for a new, one-story single- family residence on the property Mr Fox stated that this application was deemed complete on August 6, 1997 and on September 29, 1997 the grading application was conditionally approved by the Director On October 13, 1997, within the appeal period the Director's approval was appealed to the Commission by Tom and Francine Accetta, who live immediately upslope from the subject property Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 5 Mr Fox stated that the applicable findings for a Grading Permit could be made as indicated in the Staff Report. He stated that the grading was not excessive, there was no impact upon protected views, and believed that the grading proposed conformed with the minimum standards set forth in the Development Code Therefore, Staff recommended upholding the Director's decision for the proposed grading. Vice Chairman Whiteneck moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed, (6-0). Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Ms. Francine Accetta. (appellant) 3417 Starline Drive, stated that she was concerned with the impact the project would have on the view and privacy from her property She stated that there had been illegal grading of the pad in the past. She also indicated that when she and her husband bought their property they were told by a building inspector that the building height would be measured from the average elevation of the front property line along Newridge Drive Ms Accetta was in opposition to the proposed project and requested that the Commission deny the applicant's request. Mr. L.R. Eide, 3420 Starline Drive, stated that he was interested in keeping his view of the Los Angeles Harbor He asked the Commission to consider this issue and asked them to save the views that they could. Mr Eide opposed the proposed project. Mr. Zvi Plotnik, (applicant's civil engineer), 17621 Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance, CA displayed some exhibits comparing the existing topography to the topography of the lot when it was first created in the late 1950's Mr Plotnik stated that the lot had not been filled as previously indicated by Ms Accetta, as evidenced by the fact that on the east side of the lot that the slope was still one to one in steepness Ms. Andrea Wakita. (applicant's representative) 1326 Parkwestern Drive, San Pedro, CA, stated that she saw no evidence of excessive illegal grading on the property She displayed some exhibits which showed what portions of the residence would be less than the 16 foot height limit. She felt that they had done as much as they could to minimize the impact to the Accetta's view, eventhough it was an unprotected view under the Code Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. With no objection, the Public Hearing was declared closed by the Chairman. RECESS AND RECONVENE Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 6 At 9 27 P M there was a brief recess until 9 40 P.M. when the meeting reconvened Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commissioners if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Alberto stated that most of his questions were answered, but was disappointed with the response from the applicants regarding the view impairment Although he would like to see some sort of compromise between both parties, he felt that there was no reason to deny the project Vice Chairman Whiteneck saw no other alternatives to satisfy the appellant and stated that he could only support the applicant's request Commissioner Clark commended Ms Accetta for her presentation that evening, but based on the facts and evidence presented that evening and in the Staff Report, he could only support the applicant's request Commissioner Cartwright sympathized with the appellant and wished there was some way that the Commission could satisfy both parties, but unfortunately he could not see any substantial evidence from the appellant to overturn the Director's decision Therefore he supported Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Slayden concurred with his fellow Commissioners Chairman Vannorsdall echoed the comments of his fellow Commissioners and supported Staffs recommendation Commissioner Alberio moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-72; denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval of Grading Permit No. 1950 subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed by a roll -call vote, (6-0). Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. 8. Grading Permit No. 1955 - Appeal, Atil Nath [applicantlappellant]. 38 Santa Catalina Drive. Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that on June 23, 1997 the applicant submitted an application for a Grading Permit to the City The request was for a nine hundred and twelve cubic yards of grading for a new 6,253 square foot single-family residence The application was deemed complete on August 11, 1997 Mr. Fox stated that the Director reviewed and denied the application on September 29, 1997, since the applicable findings could not be made. He stated that on October 14, Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 7 1997, but that on October 6, 1997 during the appeal period the project was appealed to the Commission Mr Fox stated that the Staff believed that the applicable findings for the Grading Permit could not be made for the proposed residence since the amount of grading was excessive for a pad lot and was not sensitive to the existing topography, which included an extreme slope at the rear of the property Therefore, Staff recommended denying the applicant's appeal and upholding the Director's denial of the grading permit Commissioner Clark moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (6-0). At 9.55 P.M. Commissioner Slayden excused himself from the dial and left the meeting. Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item. Mr. Jaime Garcia, 720 Priscilla Lane, Burbank, CA, stated that he was present to answer any questions that the Commission had. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark. 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 Clark stated that the Staff Report indicated three fundamental points to the subject site that make it impractical to grant the applicant's request Therefore, he supported the Director's denial. Commissioner Cartwright concurred with Commissioner Clark and added that are a number of alternatives available to the owner of the lot which he has not taken advantage of. Therefore, Mr Cartwright also supported Staffs recommendation Commissioner Alberio also concurred with his fellow Commissioners. Vice Chairman Whiteneck stated that if two feet were removed from that lot it would create drainage problems Mr. Whiteneck suggested that the applicant explore some other modification that would not require so much excavation and would meet the City's regulations Chairman Vannorsdall echoed the comments of Commissioners Clark, Cartwright and Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 8 Alberno and supported Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-73; denying the appeal and upholding the Director's denial of Grading Permit No. 1955. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed by a roll -call vote, (5-0). Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. At this time, Agenda Item No. 4 was considered CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Planning Commission Memoranda to City Council Chairman Vannorsdall read aloud the requested action for this item, and referred to the draft memoranda that had been distributed to the Commission Commissioner Cartwright inquired about the reimbursement practices in other cities and then asked about the expense budget for the Council. Director/Secretary Petru replied that she was only able to make contact with the Cities of Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates. She stated that the City of Rolling Hills indicated that they had no compensation or mileage reimbursement for their Commission members The City of Rolling Hills Estates had the same practice, but if their Commission members wished to be reimbursed for mileage they could put in for 315 per mile However, the Director indicated that none of their commissioners apply for reimbursement. Commissioner Alberio inquired about the amount of the Mayor's reimbursement for monthly expenses. Director/Secretary Petru replied that the amount reimbursed for the Mayor was $300 00 and that the Council members receive $150.00 per month. Commissioner Cartwright agreed with the principle that there should be some type of reimbursement for both the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Commission, but thought that the reimbursement amount that was being suggested was too excessive Commissioner Clark also agreed, but suggested that perhaps the Commission should discuss this item again during next year's budget cycle. He felt that the timing was not Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 9 appropriate. Commissioner Cartwright addressed the memorandum regarding the portraits and suggested that maybe each department could display the portraits of the Commission it serves as well as an organizational chart. He then suggested that the Commission discuss this issue further at a later time Commissioner Clark moved to table this item until the fiscal year 1998-1999 budget cycle. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed by acclamation, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS None. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff: 9. Pre -agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 1997 Commission• None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items): None. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by Chairman Vannorsdall. N IGROUPIPLANNINGIPCIAINXMINI 1.25 Planning Commission Minutes November 25,1997 Page 10