Loading...
PC MINS 19980210CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 1998 CALL TO ORDER Approved 2/24/98 P-- The meeting was called to order at 7 00 P M by Acting Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Vannorsdall ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberto, Lyon, Slayden, Vannorsdall and Acting Chairman Cartwright Absent Chairman Clark (excused) Also present were Acting Director/Secretary Rous, Senior Planner Snow, Associate Planner Fox, Staff Assistant Zents, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Acting Director/Secretary Rojas stated that there were no Communications from Staff. Commission Acting Chairman Cartwright inquired about the status of the vacancy on the Commission. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas replied that the intent of the City Council was to review a list of candidates and appoint a new commissioner. Mr. Rojas stated that Staff would follow-up on this matter and keep the Commission informed. Commissioner Alberio informed the Commission that he received correspondence and photographs from Mr. Jeff Logan regarding Agenda Item No. 5 when he visited the site at 28757 Enrose Avenue. Other Commissioners stated that they too received the same information, and staff verified that the same material was included in the staff report for the item. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 25 1997 Commissioner Slayden requested that on page 3, paragraph 9, line 2 the word "not" be inserted between the words "should" and "be" Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that on page 6, paragraph 2, line 3 the word "bee" be modified to read as, "been". Acting Chairman Cartwright also requested that on page 6, paragraph 6, line 5 the word "lo" be modified to read as, "lot' and on page 10, paragraph 2, lines 3 and 4 the words "stated, maybe, should, and and" be deleted and that the word "suggested" be inserted between the words "then" and "that'. 2. Minutes of December 9 1997 Acting Chairman Cartwright requested that on page 4, paragraph 1, line 1 be modified to read as, " moved to adopt P C Resolution No 97-74 ..". 3. Minutes of January 27, 1998 Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Minutes of November 25, 1997 and December 9, 1997 as amended and the Minutes of January 27, 1998 as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Lyon abstaining from Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2 since he was not present at the meetings of November 25, 1997 and December 9, 1997. Planning Commisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 2 CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Conditional Use Permit No 68 - Revision 'D' and Grading Permit No 1931: John and Madonna Beal, 19 Marguerite Drive Associate Planner Fox updated the Commission on the status of this item and stated at the January 13, 1998 meeting the Commission requested that Staff and the applicant work to re -design the project to reduce the amount of grading and look into raising the building pad by two feet Mr. Fox stated that the applicant had mapped the revisions, and provided Staff with the revised grading figures as indicated in the Staff Report. As discussed at the meeting of January 13, 1998, raising the building pad by two feet would cause an increase in the ridge height, it would impair the view from the property at 10 Marguerite Drive (located above the subject property) Staff conducted an analysis at 10 Marguerite Drive and determined that the primary viewing area was in the kitchen and dining area and the view is of whitewater at Christmas Tree Cove Associate Planner Fox stated that a structure on the subject property built to the approved maximum ridgeline elevation of 226'0" would obstruct this view, but that this view was not protected Staff believed that raising the building pad an additional two feet resulting in an overall ridgeline elevation of 228'0", would not significantly impair the view since it would be blocked by a 226'0" structure which is permitted at the site Therefore, Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with a two foot increase in the maximum ridgeline height Associate Planner Fox stated that the applicant requested two other modifications; 1) reducing the northerly side -yard setback and 2) increasing the side -yard wall height. Staff recommended approval of the height of the side -yard wall, and determined that a 1.1 foot reduction in the northerly side setback would not significantly impair the views from the adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff recommended approval of these revisions of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Fox concluded his presentation by stating that based on the revised information from the applicant and previous Staff Reports, Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit Since the Public Hearing remained opened from the previous meeting of January 13, 1998, Acting Chairman Cartwright asked the applicant to approach the podium to speak first Mr. Russ Barto (applicant) 3 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274, stated that the Staff Report comprehensively covered the modifications such as the level of the home which was raised by two feet thereby raising the levels of the driveways, and reducing a significant cut of the proposed project and the height of the retaining walls. Mr Barto stated that they also proposed taking a portion of the Planning Commisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 3 excavated material and spreading this over the twenty-five foot setback area towards the ocean side of the proposed project so that the exterior will be wheel -chair accessible Acting Chairman Cartwright asked the Commission if they had questions for the applicant. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that one of the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project stipulated that the applicant must submit a geological study to the Commission once the proposed project is approved Mr Vannorsdall cautioned about the potential geologic issues when he met with the applicant at the subject site Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he spoke with a former Planning Commissioner who was aware of the conditions in that area and stated that there was extensive geologic work conducted on Lot No 1-A (nearest Palos Verdes Estates) The former Planning Commissioner also stated that past investigation work cost approximately one -hundred thousand dollars after which the potential purchaser opted not to buy the property Commissioner Vannorsdall stated on the information provided him indicated that there were potential stability issues regarding the subject site worthy of further investigation. Mr. Vannorsdall also emphasized to the applicant that caving -off at the coastal bluff occurs, and that this was the reason for the setback Mr. Raymond Newby, 10 Marguerite Drive, believed that if the applicant raised the ridgeline of the proposed project by two feet and reduced the northern setback, that the resulting structure would impair his view of the coastal whitewater at Christmas Tree Cove Mr Newby was under the impression that a silouhette with flags would be erected according to the View Restoration Guidelines so that he and other residents would be able to see how much of the proposed project would affect his view and other residents involved Commissioner Alberio questioned Staff regarding the silouhette requirement Associate Planner Fox replied that at the meeting of January 13, 1998 while the Commission discussed the height of the proposed structure it was decided that construction of a silouhette was not necessary Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Lorna Burrell, a member of the audience, to comment on this item since she had spoken when this meeting of January 13, 1998 item was discussed Planning Gommisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 4 Ms. Lorna Burrell, 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West, replied that she had no further comment, but that she did not believe that the proposed project would not significantly impact the view from Mr Newby's property Commissioner Alberio requested that Mr. Barto approach the Commission for rebuttal At this time, Acting Director/Secretary Rajas intervened and informed the Commission that Staff obtained photographs of Mr. Newby's property The photograph displayed the view from the property and Mr Barto was able to match the photograph for the proposed project (the Beal plan) to see how the layout of the two lots would relate to one another. Acting Chairman Cartwright asked the applicant if he wished to provide any rebuttal comments. Mr. Barto felt that he was cooperative with Staff in exploring alternatives which the Commission would find acceptable for the proposed project He expressed his desire not to erect a silouhette of the proposed structure. Commissioner Alberio, after glancing at the photographs which Staff provided, stated that if the vegetation were eliminated on Mr Newby's property the issue of Mr Newby's view impairment would largely be resolved Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. With no objection, the meeting was declared closed by Acting Chairman Cartwright. Acting Chairman Cartwright requested Commission discussion of this item Commissioner Slayden felt that the proposed project would not significantly impact the view from Mr Newby's property. Commissioner Lyon stated that he had not visited the subject site, but was puzzled by the view analysis since no silouhette was erected. Mr Lyon asked if Staffs conclusion would potentially change if a silouhette was erected, and utilized in the view analysis of the proposed project Associate Planner Fox replied that this was unlikely but, possible, and that the Commission's direction was not to erect a silouhette at that time. Mr. Fox also mentioned the fact a visual analysis was conducted by Staff, and that it does not occur Planning Commisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 5 • LIA Commissioner Alberio stated that when he viewed the photographs of 10 Marguerite Drive and the proposed project he believed that eliminating the vegetation would resolve the matter Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that there would be no significant change of view for Mr. Newby's residence Acting Chairman Cartwright echoed the comments of Commissioner Vannorsdall Mr Cartwright visited the site a few times and concluded that there would not be much of a view Impairment for the Newby's property and that the modifications made to the proposed project were substantial such as the reduction of the grading and export, and the home raised Therefore he supported Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-6, thereby conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 68 - Revision 'D' and Grading Permit No. 1931. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed by a unanimous roll -call vote, (5-0). Acting Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Reconsideration of Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit No. 20 - Appeal; Jeff Logan, 28757 Enrose Avenue [applicant]; R.A. Bundgard, 6708 Via Canada GappellantL Associate Planner Fox recapped discussions from the January 13, 1998 meeting and described the site conditions regarding portions of the rear wall that are more than four feet tall. The condition of the slope of the lot which required the wall to be stepped was discussed as well as the condition of the low point at the northwest corner of the lot Mr. Logan placed less than three feet of fill at this corner in order to level out the inside corner of the lot, therefore the rear wall is approximately six feet tall as viewed from the abutting properties on Via Canada Associate Planner Fox stated that in reviewing Mr. Logan's application for the Fences, Walls, and Hedges Permit, it was believed that wall could significantly affect the views from the Johnson (6712 Via Canada) and Hall (6716 Via Canada) properties Mr Fox stated that Staff initially approved a modified version of the wall at four feet with an additional foot of wrought iron at the top of the wall in order to provide the required pool fencing height and to lessen the view impact on the adjacent properties Planning Commisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 6 Mr Fox stated that Staff re -visited the project site to inspect the as -built walls and photographs from the subject property as well as the adjacent properties (Johnson's and Hall's) were taken. These photographs were taken from the primary viewing areas of both homes, the dining room at the Johnson's, and the deck outside the living room at the Hall's Associate Planner Fox stated that based on the comparisons of the existing and previous conditions and Staffs previous analysis regarding potential view impairment, Staff believed that the as -built wall would not significantly impair the views from the Johnson's and Hall's properties Mr Logan, as a condition of approval would be required to remove most of the foliage and trim the two ash trees, thereby enhancing the views from adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff recommended that the Commission modify the approval of the Fences, Walls and Hedges Permit to reflect the as -built condition of the wall and to modify the initial tree -trimming requirement regarding trimming of the two ash trees Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. Mr Roy Bungard, (appellant) 6708 Via Canada, discussed several discrepancies such as the height of the as -built wall with no wrought iron railing at the top Mr Bungard restated his request from the January 13, 1998 meeting that the Commission required the applicant to lower the north wall of his property by two feet in order to preserve Mr Bungard's view. Mr. Bungard stated that his main concern was the removal of the forage, but when he viewed the height of the as -built wall he also became concerned with this issue Mr. Arthur Johnson (adjacent neighbor) 6712 Via Canada, provided a series of photographs to the Commission displaying the wall adjacent to the property He stated that Staff measured the back northwest wall at six feet, but he measured differently and stated that the wall was ninety-six inches at the corner of the wall Mr Johnson was also concerned with the height of the as -built wall and the foliage and the foliage that was to be removed by Mr Logan. Acting Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Johnson what his main concerns were so that the Commission would consider them before delivering a final discussion for the project. Mr. Johnson replied that his main concern was that the original proposed height of the wall was altered when constructed and wondered why the northerly wall was not subject to the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit Planning Commisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 7 Mrs Carol Johnson. 6712 Via Canada, stated her disagreement with Staffs measurement of the walls and then expressed how displeased she was with Staffs analysis, recommendation in favor of the applicant's request, and the general processing of this project Mr. Jeff Logan,, (applicant) 28757 Enrose, briefly reiterated the sequence of events from the time his application was submitted to the City up until that evening He stated that there was no misunderstanding on his part once the Commission approved his request at the December 9, 1997 meeting During the appeal period he understood that only the trimming issue of the two ash trees was appealed, but not the proposed height of the wall Mr Logan expressed how he worked very diligently with Staff to explore alternatives to address the concerns of the appellants and yet at the same time, conform with the City's Building Code to proceed with his proposed project. Mr. Jim Rogaero} 28751 Enrose, stated that the wall between his property and Mr Logan's property provided privacy for him and stated that this wall was beneficial for both he and the applicant Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. With no objections, the Public Hearing was declared closed by Acting Chairman Cartwright. Acting Chairman Cartwright asked the Commissioners for any discussion of this item. Commissioner Vannorsdall was concerned with the issue of privacy and view impairment for the parties involved. Mr. Vannorsdall felt that the wall around Mr Logan's property was too high and would impair views for the Bundgard's, Hall's, and Johnson's. He understood that Mr. Logan's intention for the wall was to provide privacy for his property, but suggested that perhaps all involved parties should compromise to resolve the concerns raised that evening. Commissioner Slayden believed that once the ash trees at Mr. Logan's property were trimmed to sixteen feet the view for the Bundgard's, Halls, and Johnson's would be significantly enhanced Mr Slayden pointed out that the northerly wall was not factored in this application as it is permitted by right and felt that it should not be discussed Commissioner Lyon abstained from the discussion of this item since he was not present at the previous meetings of December 9, 1997 and January 13, 1998 Acting Chairman Cartwright echoed the comments of Commissioner Slayden and believed that the applicant did not commence wall construction with malice Mr Cartwright supported Staff s recommendation Planning Gommisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 8 Commissioner Alberio also felt that the applicant, appellant, and other involved parties could have mitigated the issues of privacy and view through a compromise. Mr Alberio requested that Staff measure the as -built wall at Mr Logan's property to confirm the measurements (96") taken by Mr Johnson Commissioner Alberio moved to re -visit the site of the wall and requested that the ash trees be trimmed and cut to sixteen feet. Mr. Alberlo stated that this analysis would assist the Commission in seeking a compromise for this item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas clarified for the record that the wall claimed to be measured at 96 inches by Mr Johnson was the northerly wall, and not subject to the Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit Mr. Rojas stated that this wall was allowed to be measured at six feet on the high side and eight feet on the low side, per the municipal code The motion was amended by the maker requesting that the trees be trimmed and cut to sixteen feet. Commissioner Slayden stated that the trimming of the ash trees was mentioned in previous Staff Reports and was part of Staffs recommendation, and that the issue would have been much clearer if the trimming could have been completed prior to tonight's meeting. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the trimming of the ash trees was required as a condition of approval, and therefore was subject to change As a result, Staff did not instruct the applicant to trim the trees since it would be at the applicant's own risk since the decision to trim them would not be final until the appeal is acted upon Commissioner Alberio withdrew his motion. Commissioner Slayden moved to accept Stafrs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-7, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the approval of Fences, Walls, and Hedges Permit No. 20 as recommended. The motion was seconded by Acting Chairman Cartwright and passed by a roll -call vote (3-1-1) with Commissioner Vannorsdall dissenting and Commissioner Lyon abstaining. Acting Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period NEW BUSINESS I'Ll Planning Commisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 9 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 6. Pre -agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of February 24s 1998. Commission Acting Chairman Cartwright informed the Commission that he received a memorandum from Commissioner Vannorsdall regarding Commission business items for discussion at future Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Cartwright suggested to continue this matter upon Chairman Clark's return and requested that Staff agendize this as a New Business Item for the February 24, 1998 meeting. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regardingnon-agenda items) None. ADJOURNMENT At 9:06 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by Acting Chairman Cartwright. 1►i►C�3:Z•1�1,1'11_Ll►fi►C�I•PIP► �� ► � � Planning Commisison Minutes February 10, 1998 Page 10