Loading...
PC MINS 19980609CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 9, '1998 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED 06/23/98 r ---- The meeting was called to order at 7.05 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Chairman Clark announced to the Commission and the public the promotion of Acting Director/Secretary Rous to Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Chairman Clark asked Director/Secretary Rojas to lead in the Pledge of Allegiance On behalf of the Commission Chairman Clark congratulated Mr Rojas on his promotion to Director of Planning, Budding, and Code Enforcement ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark Absent None Also present were Director/Secretary Rous, Senior Planner Snow, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to add an additional item to the Agenda, No. 6A (Discussion of Commission Reimbursement). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (7-0). Commissioner Paris moved to consider the Agenda Items in the following order: 1, 2, 6, 4, 5, 3, 6A, and 7. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Mr. Rojas acknowledged his appointment to Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that he was looking forward in working with them on upcoming projects. Staff distributed the following items regarding Agenda Item No. 2 (Height Variation No. 827 - Appeal): 1) an item of late correspondence from the applicant's attorney, Ms. Jan Chatten-Brown, and 2) copies of the revised P.C. Resolution. Commission: None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MAY 26 1998 Commissioner Paris requested that the word 'capitol' be modified to read as, 'capital' throughout this set of minutes. Commissioner Slayden requested that on page 17, paragraph 4 the project description be modified to read as, 'EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 171; Vessel Assist Association of America, Inc., 1012 Brioso Dr., Suite 101, Costa Mesa [applicant]; Eugene Muntean, 30057 Matisse Drive [property owner]'. Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that on page 6, paragraph 4, line 4 the number '65' be modified to read as, '55. Vice Chairman Cartwright requested that on page 11, paragraph 5, line 2 the words'was' and 'a' be inserted between the words 'there' and 'major'. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Minutes of May 26, 1998 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (6-0-1) with Chairman Clark abstaining since he was not present at that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 9,1998 Page 2 CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. 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 MagdaKisaal. 7455 Alida Place japplicantsl. Associate Planner Fox briefly updated the Commission on this item. He stated at the meeting of May 26, 1998 the Commission directed the applicant and appellants to meet and work on a compromise. To that end a meeting was held between both parties and discussion of three proposed modifications were brought up by the applicant- 1) lowering the first floor ceiling by 2 feet of the two projecting wings of the home reducing the ridgeline height to approximately 4 feet lower that the maximum ridgeline (305.2) at the center of the home, 2) change the configuration of the roof at the center rear portion of the home from a gable roof to a hip roof reducing the length of the ridgeline, and, 3) reverse the garages to take access from the central motorcourt and reduce the size of the driveway by 50% at the east side of the home reducing lot coverage and increasing open space area of the subject property Mr Fox pointed out in the memorandum from the applicant's attorney, Ms Jan Chatten- Brown that the appellants had accepted and agreed with the modifications as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Fox also stated that the P C Resolution before the Commission included the proposed modifications and that the applicant, her architect, and the appellants attorney were present that evening for testimony Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had questions for Staff Commissioner Paris asked if all the appellants were satisfied with the proposed modifications by the applicant. Associate Planner Fox replied that the Attorney, Mr Ted Shield represented all four appellants and that a letter addressed to the Commission dated June 2, 1998 from Mr Shield indicated that the appellants were in agreement with the applicant's proposed modifications. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed. Mr. Ted Shield, One World Trade Center, Long Beach, CA, representing the appellants reiterated his letter to the Commission regarding the acceptance and agreement of his clients with the modifications proposed by the applicant Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1998 Page 3 Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Shield if he read and understood the conditions and resolution for the proposed project and Mr. Shied replied that he had no problem with the applicant moving forward with the project, but stated that he had not yet received or read the revised resolution Associate Planner Fox stated that Mr Sheild had the same revised resolution that was provided earlier to the Commission and that modifications were made that day to include Condition No 8, memorializing the three modifications proposed by the applicant Mr. Joseph DiMonda, (applicant's architect) 1022 Third Street, Manhattan Beach, CA stated that he would gladly answer questions or explain the proposed modifications to the Commission and requested the Commission's approval in order to move forward with the proposed project. Mr. DiMonda pointed -out and briefly discussed the three proposed modifications in the site plan to the Commission Mrs. Magda Kispal, 30153 Cartier Drive, was thankful that she and the appellants were able to reach an agreement so that she could move forward with her proposed project She thanked the Commission for their patience in considering her project On behalf of the Commission Chairman Clark thanked the applicant, appellant, and attorneys involved for their earnest attempt to reach a satisfactory solution for the proposed project Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the proposed home was located on a promontory area, was too massive, and was incompatible with the neighborhood development Commissioner Paris concurred with the comments of Commissioner Vannorsdall Vice Chairman Cartwright was glad the applicant and appellants reached a compromise and wished them well in moving forward with the proposed project Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, and Slayden had no comments. Planning Commission Minutes June 9,1998 Page 4 Vice Chairman Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 98-23; denying the appellants' appeal ; thereby approving with modifications Height Variation No. 827, and approving Grading Permit No. 1887. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed by a roll -call vote, (4-3) with Commissioners Alberio, Paris, and Vannorsdall dissenting. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period. NEW BUSINESS S. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8268: Joji & Deborah Kagei, 30430 Calle La Resolana. Associate Planner Fox stated that the proposed project involved two dormer windows and a skylight on the roof of an existing two-story single-family residence exceeding the 16 -foot height limit Mr Fox stated in considering the Site Plan Review the Commission had to make the following two findings- 1) the proposed architectural features may be erected above the height limit pursuant to the requirements of the building code, and, 2) the proposed architectural features will not cause significant view impairment from adjacent property. Staff believed that the necessary findings for the Site Pian Review approval could be made for the proposed dormer windows and skylight Therefore, Staff recommended conditional approval of this application, via Minute order, on the proposed modifications to the existing, single-family residence Associate Planner Fox informed the Commission that notices were provided to the applicant, all the adjacent property owners, and the homeowners association. Mr. Fox stated that no comments were received in opposition for the proposed project Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had questions for Staff Commissioner Slayden asked if the dormer windows were above the peak ridge roof line and Associate Planner Fox replied that they were five feet below the roof line Commissioner Paris asked if there were standards for the construction of the skylight such as, UV rating and Associate Planner Fox replied that there are no aesthetic standards, but that there were building codes that the applicant must meet Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that he lived within the vicinity of the existing residence not within 340 feet, but less than 1,000 feet Mr Cartwright stated that the existing residence was located on a different street from his home and did not affect his property value Planning Commission Minutes June 9,1998 Page 5 • 0 Commissioner Alberio moved to opened the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Mr. Yoshio Satoh. (applicant) 879 W 190th Street, Gardena, CA stated that he would be glad to answer questions for the Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that the two dormer windows would be an asset to the existing residence, and asked the applicant why he did not connect them in order to have the larger room Mr Satoh replied that there was a wall in between the second floor Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion on this item and there was none Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff s recommendation conditionally approving Site Plan Review No. 8268, via minute order. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed, (7-0) by a roll -call vote. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 - REVISION 'DDD' and GRADING PERMIT NO. 1997: Richard & Pam Finkbeiner,Lot 20/Tract 34834 [3412 Palos Vista Drivel. Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the Staff Report and stated that the proposed project was analyzed according to the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines which were adopted by the Commission in 1986 The applicant requested approval of a revised footprint and development different from that previously approved for Conditional Use Permit No 23, thus allowing construction of a new 4,050 square foot single-family residence and grading for 290 cubic yards on the subject property Mr Schonborn stated that the application was submitted to the City in February 1998 and deemed incomplete in March 1998 since it did not comply with the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines The applicant redesigned the project reducing the building footprint by 258 square feet and grading by 590 cubic yards, but failed to comply with the open space requirement. The applicant felt that further reductions would not meet their needs and submitted the revised plans in March 1998 In April 1998 the application was deemed complete Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the proposed project met all of the requirements contained within the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines, with the exception of the open space requirement. Staff believed that the proposed project could be redesigned to satisfy Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1998 Page 6 the requirement within the guidelines and therefore, recommended denial of the request since the minimum open space criterion for the site was not met, noting also that other applications had been approved with less than the required open space amount Chairman Clark asked the Commission if they had questions for the Staff. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he could not find the dimensions in the plans for the ground floor level patio Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that the applicant and architects could provide more specific information. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked when the application for the home at 3432 Palo Vista was approved and Assistant Planner Schonborn replied February 24, 1987. Commissioner Slayden asked if the square footage of the covered patio was 680 square feet and Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that this was correct and that the location was on the lower level. Commissioner Slayden noted in the Staff Report that the lot coverage has exceeded by 641 square feet He asked if the patio to be developed was considered part of the permit and Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that this was correct. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked for clarification of the location of the patio and the balcony area Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that the patio was located at ground level with the balcony above Chairman Clark stated that in 1985 the Commission had denied an application for 32525 Seacliff Drive because it provided only 65% open space. The project was appealed through City Council and the Commissions decision was overturned. Even though the project was approved thirteen years ago, Chairman Clark stated interest in knowing the factors that the City Council considered in reaching its decision Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed. Mr Rick Finkbeiner, (landowner) 424 21 st Street, Manhattan Beach, CA stated that he had been working on this project for over a year and that he had spoken with the neighbors in the area before purchasing the subject property. He stated that the proposed home was on the smaller side compared to the surrounding homes and that he had redesigned the plans several times to try to meet City requirements In closing he requested that the Commission approve the project as proposed Planning Commission Minutes June 9,1998 Page 7 Mr. Louie Tomaro. (landowner's's architect) 1001 6th Street, #100, Manhattan Beach, CA stated that the Initial design process began in reviewing other homes in the area Mr Tomaro and his client felt very comfortable with the size and design of the surrounding homes and used this character for the design of their proposed project. In doing so, Mr Tomaro was Informed by Staff that the lot coverage had been exceeded Mr Tomaro stated that the deck maximized much space on the upper living floor and cantilevered out to extend and become a balcony thus creating a covered patio which extended foot 6 inches to the furthest point Commissioner Vannorsdall asked what was the width of the building and Mr Tomaro replied 62 feet 5 inches wide Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the second floor balcony area was included as part of the lot coverage and Senior Planner Snow replied that the balcony area was included in the lot coverage, but that it would not be in addition to the ground level patio area beneath the balcony. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Tomaro if he had previously designed homes for the City in the past and Mr. Tomaro replied that he had done so. Commissioner Alberio asked if he had complied with the regulations in the guidelines (Seacliff Hills) and Mr Tomaro replied that he had utilized the guidelines, and stated that if he had decreased the size of the proposed project, he felt that it would fall out of context with the neighbors homes, and thereby be inconsistent with the neighborhood development Commissioner Vannorsdall asked what was the distance of the upper balcony away from the house and Mr Tomaro replied approximately 7 feet 6 inches away from the break room and 6 feet out at the balcony where the breakfast nook was located at the other end Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the lower pad could be the same size as the deck Commissioner Lyon asked what the reason was for not increasing the size of the balcony and Mr. Tomaro replied because of the lot coverage requirement. Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had questions for Staff Vice Chairman Cartwright believed that the project at 32541 Seacliff Drive was approved in 1994 for less than 70% open space. The project at 3432 Palo Vista was approved in 1987 after the Council overturned the Commissions decision in 1985 for the project at 32525 Seacliff Drive (65%) Mr Cartwright asked when was the project at 3402 Palo Vista (65.2% open space) approved and Assistant Planner Schonborn replied in April 1988 Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that it seemed after the Council overturned the Commission's Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1998 Page 8 decision for the protect at 32525 Seacliff Drive, that all the projects indicated in Table 3 considered by the Commission were approved at less that 70% He felt that if the guidelines were to be forced in this case it would be a departure from previous decisions since 1985 Chairman Clark asked if the proposed project was the smallest residence in the Seacliff tract and Staff replied that it is the second to the smallest home. Furthermore, Staff stated that the lot size for the proposed project is the smallest Commissioner Paris noted in Table 3 that the project at 3402 Palo Vista was the only property that had less than 70% open space after the adoption of the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines Mr Paris stated that the remaining projects indicated in Table 3 were either 70% or exceeded the open space requirement Mr Paris felt that these guidelines were consistent. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item. Commissioner Lyon stated that he had visited the subject property and although he favored rules and regulation because they serve a valuable purpose, he felt that there were extenuating circumstances related to the proposed project. Mr Lyon felt that the covered area could not be seen by anyone in front of the home since it was on a downslope lot He stated that the two homes next door were very similar to the proposed project and believed that the proposal was consistent with the surrounding neighborhood Commissioner Alberio provided the Commission with history regarding the Sea Cliff Hills tract and flexibility as established by the City Commissioner Paris stated that he had no concern with the size of the home, but felt that the Commission would be setting a precedent if they allowed the reduced open space percentage requested by the applicant Mr Paris felt that the proposed structure would be unbalanced and stated that the deck was the problem Vice Chairman Cartwright believed that the lot coverage would not affect the appearance and that the proposed project was compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood Although the proposed project was small, Mr Cartwright felt there was ample reason to make an exception in this case, in part based on previous actions Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the balcony extended out too much and believed that a compromise could be made. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Planning Commission Minutes June 9,1998 Page 9 Commissioner Alberio moved to approve Staff Report Alternative No. 2; thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 23 - Revision 'DDD' and Grading Permit No. 1997, as proposed via Minute Order, subject to the conditions contain in Exhibit'A'. The motion was seconded by Commission Lyon and passed by a roll -call vote, (6-1) with Commissioner Paris dissenting. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.26 P M there was a brief recess until 8 40 P.M. when the meeting reconvened 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 202, et al. Dr. Robert Hunt, 6470 Seacove Drive Associate Planner Fox informed the Commission that a supplemental analysis was provided to them on Friday and based on that Staffs recommendation was modified for this item. He stated that the applicant requested an outdoor bar and barbecue, miscellaneous revisions to previous City approvals, and continuing the discussion of Conditional Use Permit No. 202 regarding exterior lighting Mr Fox provided history of the project including a court judgement with respect to this particular property and extensive discussion with attorneys on both sides. Based on the analysis presented in the Staff Report, Staff believed that Site Plan Review No 8252 and the other miscellaneous revision to previous City approvals were consistent with the Development Code and previous City actions. Associate Planner Fox stated that the adjustment proposed for the items such as the light fixture, rear -yard fencing, and walkways were minor and did not create any impacts upon surrounding structures. Therefore, Staff recommended approval of the Site Plan Review Chairman Clark asked the Commission if they had questions for Staff. Commissioner Albeno requested on page 10, paragraph 11 (landscape) of the conditions be modified because the language was too broad He also requested modifications to paragraph 14 (compliance), and suggested that in paragraph 12 the word 'perpetuity' be removed and replaced with reasonable language. Commissioner Paris asked if the proposed work would be done in 60 days as indicated and Associate Planner Fox responded that the owners would be able to meet the deadline date Commissioner Paris asked if a sign -off by the City was required prior to the close of escrow Associate Planner Fox stated that this was not included Commissioner Alberio Planning Commission Minutes June 9,1998 Page 10 intervened and stated under the new rules of real estate the seller had to disclose everything Lastly, Commissioner Paris felt that paragraph 14 was not too severe Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if the draft settlement signed by Dr. Hunt included all the conditions that the Commission had discussed and Associate Planner Fox replied that this was correct Mr. Cartwright asked if changes in the conditions were made would it require renegotiation of the settlement and Associate Planner Fox replied that it potentially could Mr. Cartwright then asked if there were any outstanding issues coming before the Commission at a later date and Associate Planner Fox replied that all had been covered Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. Mrs Loma Burrell. (applicant's realtor) 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West, stated that in regards to the room outside, Dr Hunt paid the builder in full to complete the room Unfortunately the builder did not complete the fob because his business went bankrupt. Mrs Burrell informed the Commission that all of the Queen Palm trees had been removed, as required by the agreements Ms. Ilse Oetiker. 6504 Via Baron, discussed the lighting in the front yard She stated in the past months the lights were not turned on frequently, but in the previous years the lighting was very bright Ms Oetiker felt that there was excess lighting in the front yard and asked the Commission if they could direct Dr. Hunt to lower the wattage for the lighting Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated some time ago she had discussed the beautiful appearance of the fountain in the ocean side yard with a former planner Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Chairman Clark asked for Commission comments and discussion on this item Commissioner Alberio was under the impression that the discussion of the exterior lighting would not be continued and Associate Planner Fox replied that this was correct Commissioner Vannorsdall stated he had visited the site at night and felt that the lighting level was not excessive Mr. Vannorsdall suggested that the four poster lights in the front could utilize either 25, 40 or 60 -watt bulbs He suggested that 25 -watt bulbs would be appropriate and that this should be included in the conditions Planning Commission Minutes June 9,1998 Page 11 Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if there were other complaints regarding the exterior lighting and Associate Planner replied that there were none Commissioner Alberio moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-24; thereby approving Site Plan Review No. 8252 and miscellaneous revisions to previous City approvals, including Conditional Use Permit No. 202 for exterior lighting. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed by a unanimous roll -call vote, (7-0). Staff clarified the Commission's intent not to include any modifications or additions to the conditions proposed by Staff. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period CONSENT CALENDAR 3. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF ATTENDANCE POLICIES: Chairman Clark was aware that the Commission discussed this item at the meeting of May 26, 1998 Chairman Clark's main point was to ensure that there is always a quorum for upcoming meetings. He requested that should a Commission member be unable to attend an upcoming meeting that the Commissioner notify Staff and the Chairman Vice Chairman Cartwright stated his agreement with the philosophy, and found no need for changes to the Commission rules. Commissioner Paris discussed the voting procedure at a past meeting and stated that in the future he would prefer a formal roll -call vote to make actions more clear. The Commission took no action on this item. It was the consensus of the Commission to receive and file the report. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark,(7-0). NEW BUSINESS 6A. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION REIMBURSEMENT: Director/Secretary Rojas updated the Commission on the status of the Council's discussion at the June 3, 1998 meeting regarding the recommendation submitted by the Commission for reimbursement of travel expenses. Continuance of this item to the Council meeting of June 16, 1998 was the action taken that night Planning Commission Minutes June 9,1598 Page 12 Chairman Clark suggested that the Commission present an over -view regarding the compensation issue for the Council at the June 16, 1998 meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairman Clark and Commissioner Alberio attend the Council meeting of June 16, 1998 to make this presentation. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff: 7. PRE -AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1998. Commission: None. i i lull ! . s . • • s r - • . Lois Larue discussed her displeasurement with two Councilmembers regarding a letter that she received from them telling her how to vote at the elections for the school board. She also discussed how displeased she was with a Commission Member due to a comment that he made in the Peninsula Newspaper. Commissioner Paris stated, in response to Lois' comments, that the letter she referred to was not signed as 'Commissioner' Eric Paris, and that he was displeased with the addition of the title 'Commissioner' by the newspaper. He further stated his intention to request a retraction. ADJOURNMENT At 9:46 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by Chairman Clark. N-\GROUP\PLANNING\PCMIN\MIN06-09 98 Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1998 Page 13