Loading...
PC MINS 19980512CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 12, 1998 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED ;'26/ 98 The meeting was called to order at 7 08 P.M by Vice Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Albeno. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, and Vice Chairman Cartwright Chairman Clark arrived at 7.10 P M Also present were Assistant City Attorney Craig Steele, Associate Planners Pfost and Fox, Assistant Planners Louie and Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi Acting Director/Secretary Rojas arrived at 7 26 P M APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to consider the Agenda Items in the following order: 1st: Agenda Item No. 5 (Interpretation Hearing); 2nd: Agenda Item No. 10 (Conditional Use Permit No. 200, Coastal Permit No. 143 and Grading Permit No. 1993); 3rd: Agenda Item No. 9 (Conditional Use Permit No. 8 - Revision 'C' Grading Permit No. 1991 and Environmental Assessment No. 700); 4th: Agenda Item No. 8 (Height Variation No. 855 and Site Plan Review No. 8218) after the Consent Calendar; 5th: Agenda Item Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 12 in sequential order. The motion was seconded by Vice Cartwright and passed, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Staff distributed copies of the March 24, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes and an item of late correspondence from Mrs. Magda Kispal regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Height Variation No. 827 - Appeal), and an item of late correspondence from Mrs. Patricia Arrand regarding Agenda Item No. 3 (Conditional Use Permit No. 195, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24655, Grading Permit No. 1903, Sign Permit No. 842, Site Plan Review No. 7942, and Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 27). Commission~ Vice Chairman Cartwright reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Monthly Breakfast. Mr. Cartwright informed the Commission that he had received a telephone call from a resident regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Height Variation No. 827 - Appeal) and that no consequences were discussed. Chairman Clark informed the Commission that he mailed a letter to Acting Director/Secretary Rojas indicating that he was recusing himself from the deliberations for any upcoming Public Hearings regarding Marymount College since he lives within close proximity of the subject site. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 5, 1998 (Marriott Site Visit) Chairman Clark asked for Commission Comments on this item and there were none 2. Minutes of April 14, 1998 Chairman Clark asked for Commission Comments on this item and Commissioner Paris stated that on page 13, paragraph 7, that he did not recollect voting for the motion and believed he had dissented Recording Secretary Atuatasi stated that she would listen to the audio tapes of that meeting to confirm Commissioner Paris' statement Commissioner Paris stated that he was not aware of the procedure of changing a vote on a motion, but that he desired to do so on Conditional Use Permit No 158 - Revision Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 2 'B' discussed that evening Mr Paris then asked Chairman Clark how the Commission voted that evening and Chairman Clark replied that the Commission discussed the six proposed miscellaneous revisions one by one and concluded each revision by a straw vote. The Commission approved the project, subject to conditions, and denied the proposed habitable space above the garages Commissioner Paris then stated he had no corrections. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Minutes of April 5, 1998, as presented, (5-0-2) with Commissioner Vannorsdall and Vice Chairman Cartwright abstaining since they were not at that meeting, and to approve the Minutes of April 14, 1998, as presented, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Lyon abstaining since he was not present at that meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. CONTINUED BUSINESS At this time, the Commission considered the following Agenda Items in this order; 5. Interpretation Hearing; U.S. Dhurandhar, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. Chairman Clark read aloud the applicant's request and Staffs recommendation for this item and asked why Staff recommended continuing this item to the meeting of May 26, 1998. Associate Planner Fox replied that due to lack of a quorum for the Planning Commission Meeting of April 14, 1998, the item was continued for consideration at the May 12, 1998 Meeting Since the applicant and appellant were not available at that meeting the Public Hearing of this item was therefore scheduled for consideration at the Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 1998 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the Meeting of May 26, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and with no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 200, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 143, and GRADING PERMIT NO. 1993: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Pointe Vicente Interpretive Center. 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West. Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 11998 Page 3 Chairman Clark read aloud the applicant's request and Staffs recommendation for this item and asked Staff to comment on the recommendation of this item and Associate Planner Pfost replied that this it was originally scheduled for considered at the Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1998, but due to lack of a quorum it was automatically rescheduled for the meeting of May 12, 1998. Since this item was a City project and the items for consideration that evening were quite extensive, Staff felt it was appropriate to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 1998, and if speakers desired to give testimony that they be allowed to do so since this item was noticed Mr Pfost stated that there was one speaker who would not be available for the meeting of May 26, 1998, and that he requested to speak before the Commission Chairman Clark asked the speaker if he desired to speak that evening or hold his comments for the meeting of May 26, 1998. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Mr. Tom Alley 6304 Sattes Drive, opposed the proposed project and stated that he enjoyed the Interpretive Center the way it is and would like for it to remain that way. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Commissioner Alberio moved to Continue the Public Hearing of this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). Chairman Clark acknowledged to the Public that Assistant City Attorney Steele was seated at the dais that evening 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 8 - REVISION 'C', GRADING PERMIT NO. 1991 and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 700; Mount Olive Lutheran Church, 5975 Armaga Springs Road. Associate Planner Pfost stated that this project was scheduled for consideration at the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting, but due to lack of quorum the item was automatically continued to the meeting of May 12, 1998 Mr Pfost stated that Staff approached the applicant and asked if they would agree to continue this item to the meeting of May 26, 1998, since the items for consideration that evening were quite Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 4 extensive The applicant was in agreement therefore, Staff recommended the Public Hearing of this item continue to the meeting of May 26, 1998. Associate Planner Pfost stated that there were no requests to speak for this item. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 195. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24655 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1903, SIGN PERMIT 842, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 7942, and SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 27; Marriott Senior Living Services, North and west of the intersection of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. Chairman Clark introduced the project and Commissioner Alberio questioned whether Agenda Item No 8 was supposed to be considered along with the previous Public Hearings discussed since it was not as extensive as the remainder of the Public Hearing Items for consideration that evening Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that Agenda Item No. 8 was included in the original motion for re -ordering the Agenda, and Staff confirmed Mr Vannorsdall's comment Therefore, Chairman Clark moved onto Agenda Item No 8 and read aloud the applicant's request as well as Staffs recommendation for this item PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 855 and SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8218; Dr. & Mrs. Allen Ginsberg, 3020 Crownview Drive. Since the only the applicant was present for this item, Vice Chairman Clark suggested placing this item in its original Agenda order for consideration since an opposing neighbor may be present later that evening for participation with the discussion of this item. Commissioner Lyon moved to consider this item of Public Hearing after Agenda Item No. 3 is discussed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 6 9- 0 CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 195. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24655, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1903, SIGN PERMIT 842, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 7942, and SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 27: Marriott Senior Living Services, North and west of the intersection of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. Associate Planner Pfost stated that at the March 24, 1998 meeting, the Commission reviewed the applicant's proposed project and heard testimony from the public Further review of the project was continued on April 5, 1998, at the subject site where the developer gave a brief presentation of the proposed project The Site Visit ended at two residential homes (the Nakata's and Segretto's) at 5663 and 5677 Mistridge Drive where the Commission, Staff, and public met to see how the proposed project might impact the views of the residences' involved Associate Planner Pfost stated that the Public Hearing of this item was continued for consideration at the May 12, 1998 meeting. Based on the previous Staff Report, Staff felt that the original proposed protect met the findings for the approval of this item Although Staff recommended approval for the proposed project, Staff stated the Commission might discuss: 1) views and possible measures to reduce any perceived impacts, such as the proposed alternatives; 2) parking issues, and, 3) requirement for a trail easement Associate Planner Pfost informed the Commission that Staff had not yet completed the Draft Resolutions however, the Draft Conditions of Approval were included for the Commission's review Associate Planner Pfost stated that two additional letters were received from Mr Glen Steiger regarding the possible presence of an old military building on the subject site. Mr Pfost stated that Staff had completed a review of the City's records and found no record of the building or permits for the demolition of any such building. Furthermore, he stated that Staff would continue to research this issue and should any additional information be discovered it would be presented to the Commission. Chairman Clark asked the Commission if they had questions for Staff Commissioner Paris asked what percentage of the open space area (70%) was landscaped Associate Planner Pfost replied that the 70% open space area included parking, driveways, and the building footprint, but was not sure if it included the fire Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 6 road around and that the Commission could ask the applicant this question when he approaches the podium Commissioner Paris noted that the applicant was intending to sell one acre back to the Palos Verdes Landholding Company and asked why Staff has not considered the ramifications of this issue Acting Director/Secretary Rojas replied that Staff has not looked Into that issue, but that maybe the applicant would be able to provide further information. In terms of the of the sale between Marriott and Palos Verdes Landholding Company, Staff is not privileged to the detailed information (agreements and constraints). Mr. Rous stated his awareness regarding P V Landholding in that they retain some rights to the property if the proposed development Is not approved on site. Commissioner Slayden asked why Alternatives 1A or 2A were not recommended by Staff and Associate Planner Pfost stated the reasons were the additional export and grading Impacts Commissioner Paris stated that public transportation In this certain section of the City was riot ample and asked if this had been compensated in consideration of the proposed project Associate Planner Pfost replied that the proposed project included a vanpool service. Mr. Wayne Sant* 3130 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 430, Santa Ana, CA briefly reiterated the purpose of the proposed center He stated that 'Assisted Living' specifically served frail seniors who need assistance with daily activities. The average age of their residence is eight -four years old and that 70% are female. Mr. Sant stated that the proposed center was not an Independent living residence such as the Canterbury and that the center Included 25 beds for seniors with mental frailties Furthermore, he stated that this is the only center in the City that would specialize In this service for seniors Mr. Sant addressed the following concerns for the Commission and public 1) Alternatives Nos 1, 1 A, 2, and 2A were evaluated by Staff, and he continued to believe that the originally proposed pad elevation of 1206.5 was the best alternative; 2) Mr Sant felt that there was sufficient parking as proposed in the plans and stated that he was in agreement with the conditions of approval related to the parking; Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 7 3) He indicated in his letter sent to the Commission that there was no benefit for the proposed center if the acreage of land increased, but that 4.57 acres which he requested was more than sufficient and that the additional space would serve as green space, 4) The Civil Defense Shelter (old military budding) as identified by Mr. Steiger was referenced in an environmental and geotechnical report indicating that there was an above -ground bunker located on the property Mr Sant stated in the 1940's there was some type of structure at the southwest corner of the property and that in the 1950's there was only the remains of a fence structure Mr. Sant stated that he would make copies of the report that he was referring to and provide it to the City for evaluation. He also mentioned that if there is any historical significance at this location he was willing to work with a historical society or any other group that has an interest in preserving the memory of that structure; 5) Mr Sant requested a modification in Condition No 21 as recommended- by ecommendedby Staff requesting the increased amount of cut and fill for recompaction of the existing soils since it will not be buildable in the current state, 6) Mr. Sant stated that the reason for not evaluating a one-story building alternative was that it was the 'no project alternative' and recommended by an EIR consultant Meaning, if a 16 foot story building was constructed on the premises it would not justify the proposed project economically; 7) Mr Sant stated that of the 70% open space area 35% is considered green -space, 8) Regarding the agreement with Palos Verdes Land Holding Company and Marriott it was intended that P.V. Land Holding Company needed all the land that they could receive in order to justify building two lots per acre Therefore the maximum yield from the 12 acres they purchased would be increased if the additional land that Marriott purchased was transferred to the adjacent owner if they could balance their grading with his along the property lines Mr Sant stated that this was only an agreement and contingent upon P V Land Holding Company balancing the grading so that he would not have all the slope area on his parcel; 9) The sale to Palos Verdes Landholding Company was completed and was in escrow for approximately two years and Mr Sant was unaware of any applications submitted to the City, but it was verified by a Host Marriott representative that P V Landholding Company was still under contract to purchase that portion of the property; and, 10) Views to the north were important for the residents of the proposed facility, but the trade-off would not necessarily be sufficient enough to justify the additional grading of the northerly knoll Mr Sant stated the reason for proposing Alternative Nos 1A and 2A was to indicate to the Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 8 Commission what the grading effect would be if the second and third story was provided with views at the rear of the proposed facility Commissioner Albeno asked if there was a plan to expand the proposed center in the future and Mr. Sant replied that he did not foresee any future expansions. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if there were similar prototypes (three-story) of the assisted living centers erected and Mr Sant replied that his first three-story assisted living center was completed over a year ago and that currently approximately ten were opened of the three-story versions Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if an agreement was made with the adjacent property owners to place excess dirt on their property and Mr. Sant replied that the adjacent property owners intended to develop single family residences and that they would have to export dirt as well and that their engineers stated that there would be no ability for them to absorb the soil from him Mr. Sant stated that they would keep their grading activity at the subject site leaving a large sloped area at the east side of the property. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Sant if he had any questions regarding the conditions for the proposed center and Mr Sant replied that he questioned Condition No 20 prohibiting non commercial use of accessory resident uses Associate Planner Pfost replied that Staffs intention was to ensure that the food services at the subject site do not turn into a restaurant, thereby changing the use of the site. Mr Sant used an example and asked if this condition would exclude a resident birthday party with ten family members in the facility's private dining room. Chairman Clark stated that this type of event was reasonable and that Staff should re -word Condition No 20 Vice Chairman Cartwright also stated that part of Condition No 20 was employee shift count of a maximum of 35 employees without revising the conditional use permit Mr. Cartwright stated that if Mr Sant hired an additional employee he would have to come back for a revision Mr Sant replied that it would be extreme to come back for a revision if he hired an additional employee. He asked if he could work with Staff in re -wording this part of Condition No. 20 as well. Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 9 Acting Director/Secretary Rojas suggested adding 10% to make this condition more flexible Commissioner Lyon asked if discussions with Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association had taken place in regards to the five alternatives He also asked which was the most reasonable alternative from their (Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association) standpoint so that a compromise which would be economically viable for him (Mr Sant) and acceptable for the homeowners could be reached. Mr. Sant replied that he had spoken with two individuals at the Site Visit and addressed their concerns, the individuals who see the proposed facility from their property stated that they preferred the pad elevation lowered, and other individuals stated that they would like to maintain the integrity of the project Mr. Sant stated that he could not meet the needs of everyone Commissioner Lyon asked if elimination of the extra acre would impact the pad area or landscaping and Mr Sant replied that it would not impact the pad area, but that it would eliminate the slope at the easterly side of the property Chairman Clark asked Mr. Sant if he owned the 4 5 acres and he replied that he was under contract from Host Marriott with no title. Chairman Clark asked for legal opinion from Assistant City Attorney Steele and Mr. Steele replied that this type of transaction was not unusual, but once the entitlements are issued the transaction would be complete Chairman Clark asked if the proposed three-story structure was redesigned to a one- story structure would it meet the needs of the 120 units and Mr Sant replied that it would not and that additional land would be required, grading would increase as well as the exporting of soil Mr Ray Mathys} 5738 Whitecliff Drive, stated that the residences for the proposed center should be provided with high quality care in the most cost efficient way possible Mr Mathys stated that the proposed three-story center is expected to minimize the travel distance and the response time required for efficient operations and strongly believed that the design of the proposed center is proven to be best configuration for the operations of this type of facility Mr. Mathys suggested that the Commission concur with Staffs recommendation in approving the proposed center as submitted Mrs, Maxine Trevethen, 5649 Mistridge Drive, stated that she purchased her property twenty years ago and was told by her realtor that the property was zoned for Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 10 Institutional use' Mrs Trevethen stated that the community has been fortunate in having the types of facilities built in the past She believed that the Marriott project seemed to be a desirable addition to the area in terms of appearance and to the needs of the community and that the public should rely on the intelligence and integrity of the Commission to make a proper decision. Mrs. Louella Wike, 29172 Oceanridge Drive, stated that she has not yet heard of anyone objecting to the construction of the proposed facility. She supported Alternative No. 1 or 1A and felt that the pad elevation should still be lowered to reduce impact to views and then requested that the Commission move forward with the project Mrs Wike suggested placing a small park next to the proposed center and the reiterated further concerns as discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 1998, (parking limitation on trails to pedestrian use only (no horses), conditions regarding limits on vegetation height, screening, storm drain issues, use of low intensity lighting, noise and signage that was too large). Mr. Anthony Segretto, 5677 Mistridge Drive, stated that his property value would decrease by $150,000 00 if the proposed facility is approved. Mr. Segretto stated that he favored the Marriott building provided that a conforming structure that was one-story and would complement the other structures in the area. Mr. Segretto stated that he was committed to 'fairness' protecting the homeowners rights and fighting privileges that are not warranted that he felt the City may give to the Marriott Corporation at the homeowners expense Mrs. Barbara Gleahorn, 38850 Crestridge Road, concurred with Mr Mathy's comments and favored the proposed facility. Mrs. Gleghorn felt that the original proposed plans submitted by the applicant complied with the City's code. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Chairman Clark asked the applicant to approach the podium for rebuttal and Mr Sant replied that he preferred his geologist, Mr. Ted Wolfe to speak first. Mr. Ted Wolfe, (applicant's geologist) 4709 Reseda Boulevard, Tarzana, CA, stated that his client provided a grading plan review report to the City which outlines geotechnical factors of the project and indicates it is feasible to develop the site as proposed The main issue of the subject site was the stability of the northern slope which he had analyzed in regards to slippage and landslides that occurred on that slope. Mr. Wolfe stated that the proposed facility was a distance away from the northerly slope and located on the southerly portion of the slope and that the subject Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 11 site met all City standards for factors of safety and stability so that any underlying geology within the subject site was favorable Mr Wolfe indicated that the conditions of approval from the City's Geotechnical Consultant required a structure setback. The building will be approximately twenty to twenty-five feet at the southerly of the setback line. Mr. Sant responded to Mrs. Wike's concerns regarding the Alternative Nos. 1 and 1A and stated that the original proposed plans as submitted to the City was more suitable and the thought of a park on the site was worth considering, but felt it was not necessary since the majority of seniors were not able to walk long distances In response to Mr Segretto's concern, Mr Sant stated that the proposed facility would not impact home values, but have a positive impact for the community. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments. Commissioner Alberio felt that the proposed project should be downsized He stated that the applicant had the right to develop their project and that they were within the zoning and complied with the Development Code requirements Mr Alberio stated that he would like to approve the proposed project with the condition that the project be moved closer to the street with a lowered pad elevation. Commissioner Albeiro felt that Alternative No 2A was suitable for the subject site. Commissioner Vannorsdall echoed the comments of Commissioner Albeiro and added that the alternate project would be less massive Commissioner Slayden supported the original proposed project and believed that keeping the structure as far away from the street as possible would be helpful to the homeowners at the top of the hill as well as visually from Crestridge. Mr. Slayden felt that the landscaping would be kept to the proposed structure height and that the highest grade would not be above the present grading at the subject site Commissioner Lyon strongly favored the proposed project and believed that it would be a positive addition to the community and that it would be used by the residents of the City. Mr. Lyon stated that if he lived adjacent the proposed facility his preference would be the original proposed plan or Alternative Nos. 2 or 2A and would make a conditions of approval that building on a minimum of 4 57 acres with any future reduction subject to approval by the Commission. He also stated that the minor revisions to Conditions No. 20 and 21 should be made and concluded his comment by saying that he strongly supported the proposed project with those conditions Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 12 0 Commissioner Paris stated that the vast majority who were not present at the meeting opposed the proposed project and also felt that Marriott was placing pressure on the Commission for a 'yes' or 'no' vote Mr Paris opposed all five alternatives and stated that based on 30% to35% landscaping with one acre being sold back to Palos Verdes Land Holding Company it would leave 10% to 16% for landscaping Mr Paris stated that a new alternative should be found on a different section of the property so that the structure is lowered and is located on more acreage. Vice Chairman Cartwright stated his belief that the proposed project would be an addition to the Peninsula area and would add value to the community He felt that any view impairment would not be significant since the landscaping would mitigate the mass issue Mr Cartwright stated that the three-story structure would be optimum and also stated that the original proposal minimized the grading activity with the modifications to Condition Nos 20 and 21 Chairman Clark supported the proposed project and stated that it would be of great value to the Peninsula community. Chairman Clark felt that all issues had been mitigated and stated that the issue at hand was 'balance' between the applicant and involved parties. Commissioner Albeiro moved to approve Alternative No. 2A for the proposed project (requiring additional geology analysis and augmentation of the EIR). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannosdall and failed by a roll -call vote, (3-4) with Commissioners Paris, Slayden, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark dissenting. Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the project as proposed with the stipulation that it is developed on 4.57 acres with revisions to Condition Nos. 20 and 21. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (4-3) by a roll -call vote with Commissioners Alberio, Paris, and Vannorsdall dissenting. Chairman Clark informed the Commission that the Resolution would be brought back for adoption on the meeting of May 26, 1998 At 9 50 P M there was a brief recess until 10:10 P M. when the meeting reconvened Chairman Clark introduced Agenda Item No 4, and Acting Director/Secretary Rous intervened informing the Chairman that Agenda Item No. 8 (Height Variation No 855 and Site Plan Review No 8218) was scheduled for consideration after discussion of the Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 13 Marriott Project as included in the original motion Acting Director/Secretary Rojas suggested since Assistant City Attorney Steele was present that evening to provide legal opinion for Agenda Item No 4 and because of the late hour it would be best if this item was considered first Commissioner Lyon moved to consider Agenda Item No. 4 before Agenda Item No. 8. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. 4. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 827 - APPEAL and GRADING PERMIT NO. 1887; Jane Botello, 7400 Alida Place; Jimmy Naumovski,7420 Alida Place: Ken Nishide, 7440 Alida Place; and Harold Reaves, 7435 Alida Place [appellants] - Leslie and Magda Kispal, 7455 Alida Place [applicants]. Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that the Commission continued consideration of this item for a new single-family residence at 7455 Alida Place to tonight's meeting The previous request for continuance was made by the appellants' attorney, Ted Shield, and by one of the appellants, Avery Knapp, and also based upon the inability of several of the appellants to attend the previous meeting Associate Planner Fox stated that a draft resolution was attached to the Staff Report of March 24, 1998, and also stated that Staff had not changed the recommendation for the proposed project (recommending adoption of the Resolution denying the appellants' appeal and upholding the Director's approval of Height Variation No. 827 and approving Grading Permit No 1887 for the proposed project, subject to conditions He also briefly addressed comments made by the applicant at the last meeting and by Mr. Shield in a recent letter) Mr. Ted Shield (appellant's attorney), 1 World Trade Center, Long Beach, CA briefly reiterated issues from his recent letter submitted to the City. 1) He stated that State -mandated 'hardship' and special privilege' findings required for a Variance should be applied to the Height Variation application Mr Shield stated that the primary finding for a Height Variation involved a determination of significant impairment of protected views from other properties by a portion of the proposed project which exceeded the 16 -foot height limitation The second finding included compatibility of the proposed project with the neighborhood; 2) Mr. Shield stated that the permits for the existing residence at 7401 Alida Place were granted without Planning Department review and stated that the structure was constructed without the need for a Height Variation since it was located on an upslope lot and that the height of the house Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 14 complied with the allowable building envelope for that area; 3) He stated that the height of the existing residence at 7435 Alida Place did not require approval of a Height Variation therefore, the protected view should be taken from he second floor rather than the first floor, and, 4) Mr Shield stated that the appellants's did not agree with Staffs analysis of the significance of any impairment caused by the proposed protect Dr. Harold Reaves (appellant) 7435 Alida Place, opposed the proposed project due to the fact that his panoramic view of the ocean would be impaired from his property He stated that if the proposed project were approved it would bisect his view of the ocean and part of the distant coastline and therefore requested that the Commission deny the applicant's request Ms. Jan Chatten-Brown (applicant's attorney) 10951 W. Pico Boulevard, CA discussed the response letter dated April 29, 1998, submitted to Mr Shield regarding a possible compromise for her client's Height Variation Ms. Brown conducted a review of Mr. Shield's request by retaining the services of an independent architect, Mr Joseph DiMonda After Mr. DiMonda's review it was concluded that the modifications proposed by Mr. Shield were not possible or desirable for her client (Mrs Kispal) Ms. Brown discussed the height of the ceilings on the first floor, the impracticality of lowering the site, and the fact that the site consists of certified compacted fill Ms Brown stated that Mr. Shield's clients had been very unreasonable, and that the legal action filed against the City for granting the Height Variation was without merit She strongly advised that Mr Shield's clients dismiss the frivolous action Mrs. Magda Kispal, (applicant) 30153 Cartier Drive, stated that she would like to have a good relationship with her neighbors Unfortunately, it appeared that most of them opposed her request of the Height Variation She hoped that this appeal would be withdrawn, but was disappointed because her proposed project had been an on-going battle between herself and the appellants Mrs Kispal stated that she had expressed no objections to other neighbors who submitted for their Height Variations previously and felt that they should support her as well She believed that the appeal was not warranted since she had complied with all requirements as indicated in the City's code. Mr. Richard Wright. (applicant's builder) 1848 South Elena, Suite 'E', Redondo Beach, CA, thanked the Commission and Staff for a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the appeal for the Height Variation He stated that he was looking forward to constructing the applicant's residence at 7455 Alida Place and agreed with Staffs findings Mr Wright stated that his clients had complied with the proper steps from he beginning of the proposed project Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 116 Mr. Joseph DiMonda., 1022 3rd Street, Manhattan Beach, CA briefly addressed Mr. Shield's proposed modifications for the Height Variation at 7455 Alida Place. He stated that the height of the ceilings on the first floor was the minimum required for the living space in a home; by lowering the site it would create problems relating to access, slope, and water damage; and, the certified compacted fill at the site required the additions of fill Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Commissioner Lyon asked if there was any quantitative basis in the Development Code to resolve the issue of neighborhood compatibility Acting Director/Secretary Rous replied that the Code definition of 'neighborhood character' is subjective and that many different aspects of a project, including structure sizes, design, bulk, mass, and lot size are considered Assistant City Attorney Steele added that zoning codes do not typically define compatibility because it is a subjective, discretionary decision He pointed out that there is a difference between 'compatibility' and 'consistency' with the neighborhood, and that the Commission is asked to make a finding whether or not the project is compatible with (i.e., similar to the other homes in the neighborhood) or consistent with (i e., the same as) other homes in the neighborhood Commissioner Lyon asked if the Kispals were within their legal rights with their proposed project, and Associate Planner Fox replied that the Kispal's are not exceeding the 26 -foot height limit permitted by the Height Variation and that all other development standards were met Assistant City Attorney Steele stated that the Development Code states that anyone can build up to sixteen feet in a residential zone by right with no special considerations The Code also indicates that anyone can build up to 26 feet with a Height Variation provided that the Director or Planning Commission make certain findings Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments Commissioner Paas believed that the Kispals could make an adjustment to the proposed project to make it acceptable to the neighbors Commissioner Lyon stated that the key factor was the difference between what the Kispals were legally entitled to do versus what they had proposed. Mr. Lyon felt that Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 16 the additional view obstruction was minor, and stated that he gave credence to what a property owner could do under the law Mr Lyon supported Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Slayden concurred with Commissioner Lyon's comments and added that the proposed project would not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he believed that the pad of the lot was too high and size of the house was too large Commissioner Alberio stated his belief that the proposed project was located on promontory and echoed the comments of Commissioners Paris and Vannorsdall Mr. Alberio wanted to see compromise between the applicant and appellants. Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that Staff had made the findings that were necessary for a Height Variation and believed that all the owners of the developed lots should have had a reasonable expectation that this lot would be developed. Mr. Cartwright felt that there was no significant view impairment, nor any privacy issues, and supported Staffs recommendation. Chairman Clark felt that a compromise between the applicant and appellant may not be possible, but noted that in the past the Commission had requested in situations of this type that both parties meet and attempt to mediate the differences between the applicant and the existing Alida Place residents Chairman Clark stated that he had considered all testimony given from both parties as well as Staffs input regarding the rights of the applicant to build what they proposed with a Height Variation. Chairman Clark moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the meeting of June 9, 1998, and requested that the applicants and appellants work together and arrive at a compromise to mediate their differences and return to the Commission with solutions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed by a roll -call vote, (4-3) with Commissioners Alberio, Paris, and Vannorsdall dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 151 - REVISION 'D' and GRADING PERMIT NO. 1389 - REVISION 'B': Warmington Homes/PHD Development: Seabreeze Tract No. 4665, Crest Road and Highridge Road. Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page V At the Commission Meeting of April 14, 1998, Associate Planner Pfost stated that the proposed project consisted of raising and lowering four pad elevations. Mr Pfost informed the Commission that the proposed project had been slightly revised The revisions were made to two of the conditions within the Resolution to adjust the height of the retaining wall located at the rear of Lot Nos. 43 through 45 and along the side of Lot No. 18 with an adjustment from six feet to a maximum of nine feet high Staff felt that a retaining wall/wrought iron fence could be approved at the back of the lot and would only be seen by residents who purchased the lots. Mr. Pfost also stated that this may allow future pools to be developed on the lots. Associate Planner Pfost stated that Staff felt the proposed changes in the pad elevation would not have any significant impact to the proposed project as currently approved, since drainage concerns had been adequately addressed. Therefore, Staff recommended the Commission approve Addendum No. 4 to EIR No. 32 for the project and the Resolution approving Conditional use Permit No. 151 - Revision 'D'. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Mr Bob McClaire. (applicant's representative) 3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, CA stated that he was present that evening to address the revisions that Staff pointed out and to answer questions that the Commission might have. Mr. Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, stated that the pad elevation changes seemed minor, but the grading activity at the subject site adjacent his property substantially changed the flow direction. He stated as a result from this change, damage to the foundation of his perimeter wall had occurred Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and there was none. Commissioner Slayden moved to accept Staffs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-14; thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 151 - Revision 'D', and Grading Permit No. 1389 - Revision 'B', subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed unanimously, (7-0). Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 855 and SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 8218: Dr. & Mrs. Allen Ginsberg, 3020 Crownview Drive. Assistant Planner Louie presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant requested approval of additions to an existing residence totalling 1,449 square feet, a 605 square foot addition to the first floor and an 844 square foot second story addition The proposed height of the addition was twenty-two feet from the highest existing grade covered by structure to the ridge Assistant Planner Louie stated that based on the analysis as indicated in the Staff Report, Staff determined that the nine findings for granting a Height Variation could be made for the second story addition to exceed the sixteen foot height limit. She stated that the proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood structures Therefore, Staff recommended approval of Height Variation No. 855 and Site Plan Review No 8218, subject to conditions Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed. Mr. Gustav Faust. 3046 Crownview Drive, stated that he had lived at his residence for thirty years and wished not to loose the view he already had He strongly believed that the proposed project significantly impaired his view and suggested that the applicant lower the height of the proposed structure to mitigate this issue of view impairment Mr Gustav stated that Mr Ginsburg agreed to trim the Bird of Paradise and the tree on his property. Mr Allen Ginsburg* (applicant) 3020 Crownview Drive, stated that he had an existing two-story home and is in the process of adding a fifteen foot addition on the top of the existing structure. Mr. Ginsburg stated that the proposed addition would not impact his neighbors privacy nor significantly impact all of his view. He discussed his proposed plans with Mr Faust before commencing the project, and at the time Mr Faust had no objections. Once construction commenced Mr. Faust had changed his thoughts of the proposed project Vice Chairman Cartwright moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and there was none Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Page 19 Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staffs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-15; thereby approving Height Variation No. 855, and Site Plan Review No. 8218, subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed by a unanimous roll -call vote, (7-0). Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period. 7. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 41; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he received direction from the City Council to explore code amendment due to issues which recently arose. The proposal for miscellaneous amendments to the municipal code included neighborhood compatibility requirement for construction of single family residences, conditional uses in the commercial zones, and antenna regulations Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and there was none. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to review the proposed amendments and directed Staff to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed by acclamation, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS Due to the late hour, the Commission continued Agenda Item Nos 11, 12, and 13 for consideration at the Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 1998. 11. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF ATTENDANCE POLICIES; 12. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT INFORMATION; ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 13. PRE -AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 26, 1998. Commission: None Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 20 None ADJOURNMENT At 12:45 A.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lyon. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by Chairman Clark, (7-0). N \GRQUMPLANNING\PWIMMIN05 12.98 Planning Commission Minutes May 12,1998 Page 21