Loading...
PC MINS 19980623CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 1998 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED 07 14/98 The meeting was called to order at 7-03 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Chairman Clark welcomed Mayor Ferrarro and Assistant City Manager Petru to the Planning Commission Meeting and asked Mayor Ferrarro to lead in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Lyon, Paris, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark. Absent Commissioner Slayden (excused). Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Principal Planner Snow, Assistant City Manager Petru, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio moved to consider the Agenda Items in the following order: 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, and 6. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Rojas announced the promotions of the following Staff members in the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department: 1) David Snow to Principal Planner; 2) Greg Pfost to Senior Planner; and, 3) Wade Davenport to Senior Code Enforcement Officer. Staff distributed the following : 1) four items of late correspondence from Mrs. Elizabeth Sax, Mr. Dan DeBorba, Ms. Lynn Robey, and Ms. Sharon Hamilton regarding Agenda Item No. 3 (Revision 'G' to the Ocean Trails Project); and, 2) an update regarding the Planning Commissioners Mileage Reimbursement approved by the Council. Staff informed the Commission that a budget adjustment would be submitted to the Council meeting of July 7 and that the Commission would receive their first $ 50.00 payment after the Council meeting of July 21 and thereafter receive payment on the Wednesday following the first Council meeting of each month directly from the Finance Department. Staff received the following late correspondence after the Commissions deadline date (Monday, noon) on: 1) Tuesday afternoon from Mr. Mike Shipman regarding Agenda Item No. 3 (Revision'G' to the Ocean Trails Project); and, 2) Tuesday evening from Mr. Mickey Rodich regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Height Variation No. 858, Variance No. 431, Site Plan Review, and Grading Permit No. 2022). Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Monthly breakfast and informed the Commission that a discussion took place regarding antennae issues discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee. Commissioner Alberio reported on his attendance at the Council meeting of the City of Manhattan Beach held July 16, 1998. The topic discussed that evening included 'Unmanned Wireless Telecommunications Monopole Structure and Related Equipment' on an abandoned water tank. Commissioner Alberio felt that his attendance was beneficial and believed that the information gained would aid the Ad Hoc Committee with antennae issues. Chairman Clark asked when the next Sub -Committee Meeting would take place and Commissioner Alberio replied immediately following the Commission Meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 1998 Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that on page 3, paragraph 2, line 7 the word 'potion' be modified to read as, 'portion-, page 6, paragraph 3, line 2 the sentence be modified to Planning Commission Minutes June 23,1998 Page 2 read as, ...he did not connect them in order to have a larger room' , and, on page 11, paragraph 10, line 3 the sentence be modified to read as, ...could utilize either 25, 40 or 60 -watt bulbs and suggested that 25 -watt bulbs would be appropriate,' Commissioner Paris requested that on page 9, paragraph 7, line 2 the word 'precedence' be modified to read as, 'precedent' Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the Minutes of May 26, 1998 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (6-0). 2. TIME EXTENSION REQUEST: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19062: Robert and Marilyn Katherman, 18 Rockinghorse Road. Principal Planner Snow briefly summarized the Staff Report and described the project as a two -lot parcel map approved years ago extended based on statutory modifications and the Subdivision Map Act. The last extension was approved June 1997 and with this being the applicant's second requested extension. Mr Snow pointed out to the Commission that the parcel map was allowed a total of 5 one year extensions. The applicant requested the extension based on his inability to meet conditions and financial constraints Chairman Clark asked Staff to explain the extension process. Principal Planner Snow replied that there was a two part process for processing of parcel maps 1) tentative approval with conditions that must be completed on the project, and 2) the applicant would be allowed a series of years to comply with these conditions which culminates with Final Map Approval when the map is recorded, Commissioner Alberio stated that there were two types of extensions 1) the Subdivision Map Act and 2) the Assembly Bill. Mr Alberio asked if the second extension requested by the applicant was authorized under the'Assembly Bill' Principal Planner Snow replied that there were some extensions granted by the Assembly Bill, but that the requested extension of this parcel map was of the type permitted through the Subdivision Map Act. Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had questions for Staff and if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied there were none Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve Staffs recommendation; thereby approving the requested one (1) year extension via Minute Order, and setting the Planning Commission Minutes June 23,1998 Page 3 expiration date of Tentative Parcel Map No. 19062 to June 9, 1999, with all conditions of approval remaining intact. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed by vote of acclamation, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 858 VARIANCE NO. 431, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8212, and GRADING PERMIT NO. 2022: Jeffrey & Susan Wolfrum, 3311 Narino Drive. Before this item was considered, Chairman Clark recused himself from deliberation on the proposed project since he lived approximately 340 feet away from the subject property Discussion of this item was led by Vice Chairman Cartwright Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant submitted applications for a Height Variation, Variance, and Site Plan Review in March 1998. The applicant requested approval of a 13 -foot front yard setback in order to accommodate construction of a new direct access two -car garage. Also requested was approval for construction of a second story bedroom addition with a deck over the new garage As indicated in the Staff Report, the applicant proposed for the second -story bedroom at an 18 -foot setback from the front property line, conversion of the existing garage into a new bedroom, additions to the existing dwelling, and 48.5 cubic yards of grading Assistant Planner Schonborn met with the applicant and discussed concerns related to the proposed project Although the proposed project was slightly modified by the applicant, this did not alleviate Staffs concerns. The applicant believed that the modifications were sufficient Mr Schonborn stated that the proposed project required a Variance, Height Variation, Site Plan Review, and Grading Permits Staff determined that the four findings for granting a Variance could not be met to allow an encroachment in the front yard setback to provide a direct access garage. Further Staff was unable to make all of the nine findings required for granting a Height Variation for a second story bedroom over the proposed new direct access garage The Grading and Site Planning Commission Minutes June 23,1998 Page 4 Plan Review Permits could not be justified as both related to the above two applications and were part of the overall project Staff believed that the proposed project did not comply with all other code requirements and was not compatible with the surrounding residences. Therefore, Staff recommended denial of the proposed project Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the Commissioners if they had questions for Staff Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the plans included with the Staff Report were the revised or final sets and Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that plans included with the Staff Report were the final plans as submitted by the applicant for the proposed project. Commissioner Alberio asked if the applicant was aware of the code requirements for the proposed project regarding compatibility, mass, bulk, height, and setbacks Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that the code requirements as well as the Height Variation Guidelines with step-by-step procedures were included in his discussion with the applicant on multiple occasions Director/Secretary Rojas stated that a meeting with the applicant and Staff was held and that Staff discussed the options with the applicant before the Staff Report was finalized. Commissioner Alberto asked if the applicant desired to submit his request to the City even though he was aware of the code requirements and guidelines and Director/Secretary Rojas replied that the applicant chose to move forward with their request Commissioner Alberio believed that the problem was the location of the expansion rather than just the height of the proposed project Commissioner Alberio asked if the applicant's architect was present that evening and Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that the applicant had no architect and that the plans for the proposed project were designed by the applicant Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Staff informed the Commission of the late correspondence received for this item which was available if the Commission wished to accept it. Mr. Mickey Rodich. (applicant's father) 32318 Sea Raven Drive, noted a couple of inaccuracies in the Staff Report and requested clarification on "neighborhood", "area", and "neighborhood compatibility" Mr Rodich felt that Staffs recommendation for the proposed project was unfair since it was based on the analysis of ten homes around the proposed project and not the entire Mira Catalina neighborhood Mr Rodich disagreed with the Planning Commission Minutes June 23,1998 Page 5 i statement in the Staff Report that read, 'there were no direct access garages or second story additions in the neighborhood ' and also noted other discrepancies he felt were contained within the Staff Report such as, the front -yard setback and automobile parking. Mr. Rodich stated that the applicant would be willing to work toward mitigating Staffs concerns Vice Chairman Cartwright explained to the applicant that 'neighborhood compatibility' is defined within the City's Code and Height Variation Guidelines and that Staff utilized the ten homes closest to the proposed subject site in making their recommendation in accordance with these procedures. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked who designed the plans for the proposed protect and Mr. Rodich replied that he had prepared the plans Commissioner Alberio stated that he would like to work with the applicant He asked if they were willing to redesign the plans for the proposed project and Mr. Rodich replied that he would like to work with Staff to resolve the issues at hand Commissioner Paris asked the applicant at what extent would they be willing to work with Staff to modify the proposed project and Mr. Rodich replied that the applicant was not in a position to hire an architect at the time due to financial constraints Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that in order to grant a Variance for the applicant one of the required findings would require that an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance apply to the subject property that does not apply to the other surrounding properties Mr Cartwright asked Mr. Rodich to explain the uniqueness of the applicant's property which did not apply to the other surrounding homes and Mr. Rodich replied that the subject property was unique because of its pie -shaped lot at the front of the existing home Mrs. Susan Wolfrum 3311 Narino Drive, stated that she and her husband were investing their money into their home and were in favor of improving the neighborhood with the proposed plans submitted to the City. Mr. Jeff Wolfrum 3311 Narino Drive, stated that he had seen many changes take place in his neighborhood during the past years and that upgrading was currently occurring Mr Wolfrum stated that he would like to make his home aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood and that he would like to work with Staff in seeking direction to reach a solution between all parties involved He concluded his testimony by requesting for a continuance of this item to review all the issues of concern Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1998 Page 6 0 0 Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion and comments regarding this item Commissioner Paris believed that the pie -shaped lot intensified the impact of the proposed addition and could not picture the proposed addition on the existing structure He felt that it would be too severe for a lot of that size and suggested that the applicant hire an architect with creative ideas and alternatives in redesigning the proposed addition. Commissioner Lyon concurred with Commissioner Paris' comments and believed that the second -story addition was too close to the street. He too suggested that the applicant hire an architect to arrive at other solutions for redesigning the proposed addition since major revisions were needed Commissioner Vannorsdall also agreed with his fellow Commissioners He opposed the idea of a pop-up garage and felt that the 16 -foot setback for the proposed addition was much too close to the street Mr Vannorsdall stated that there was very limited area to build on and believed a redesign of the proposed project was necessary Commissioner Alberio concurred with Commissioner Vannorsdall's comments stating that he would like to see the applicant and Staff work together on redesigning the proposed project and felt it would be helpful for the applicant to hire an architect who has alternative ideas for the proposed addition Vice Chairman Cartwright concurred with the comments of the Commission He too felt that the 16 -foot setback was a very serious issue and suggested an alternative to the applicant such as, pushing the direct access garage further back to allow 18 to 19 feet of space from the property line for the average vehicle Vice Chairman Cartwright told the applicant that the Commission was interested in assisting them to improve their property and since they were willing to work with Staff in exploring alternatives to redesign the proposed addition, Mr. Cartwright felt that the applicant's request for a continuance should be granted. Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that due to the Permit Streamlining Act, the action deadline date for this item would be July 12, 1998 If the Commission desired to continue this item it would be appropriate to obtain a statement from the applicant indicating that they are willing to extend the action deadline date on the application (i.e. 60 days, 90 days, etc.). Mr Rojas stated at that point, the applicant could also submit a new proposal which required a new notice for redesign Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the applicant if they were in agreement with Staff The applicant inquired about the fees for submitting a new proposal and Director/Secretary Rojas informed the applicant that the fees for submitting a revised application would be half the cost of the original fee since the notice would be sent out Planning Commission Minutes June 23,1998 Page 7 Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Staff for a recommendation on this item and Director/Secretary Rojas suggested tabling this item until the applicant was ready to move forward with the modifications, submit the revised application, and required fees Vice Chairman Cartwright moved to table this item allowing the applicant to redesign the proposed project and to submit a letter to Staff requesting an extension for the action date of this item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed by a roll -call vote, (5-0-1) with Chairman Clark abstaining. At this time, Chairman Clark returned to the dais and Agenda Item No 3 was considered 3. REVIS ON V TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT; Ocean Trails LIP. 3850 Paseo Del Mar. Assistant City Manager Petru informed the Commission that when the notices were issued by Staff, the applicant was proposing to increase the height of the clubhouse to 38 feet on the upslope side and 49 feet on the downslope side Since that time, feedback was received from the community regarding the height of the clubhouse and the possibility of potential view impairment Ms Petru stated that the developers had taken steps to redesign the project in order to address the concerns of the community The proposed project now included lowering the approved height of the building pad of the clubhouse by 2 feet and redesigning the roof line of the clubhouse so that it would be 33 feet on the upslope side and 43 feet on the downslope side Ms. Petru stated that staff required additional time to review the potential impacts of these modifications Therefore Staff is recommending that this item be continued to the next regular meeting in order to complete the analysis of the proposed revisions and to work with the applicant in addressing the concerns of the neighbors She also stated that staff was also seeking direction from the Commission whether or not the applicant should construct a silhouette framework of the clubhouse Ms Petru clarified that the item for consideration was only Conditional Use Permit No. 163 relating to golf course issues and was completely separate from any tract or grading issues. Chairman Clark asked the Commissioners if they had questions for Staff Commissioner Lyon asked if the ocean view would be obscured while one is walking on Palos Verdes Drive South looking down towards the locations of the proposed clubhouse Ms. Petru replied that the clubhouse would not be seen from that location since the tract of proposed homes would be in between the clubhouse and Palos Verdes Drive South Commissioner Lyon asked if the proposed homes would obscure the view of the clubhouse Planning Commission Minutes June 23,1998 Page 8 from Palos Verdes Drive South and Assistant City Manager Petru replied that this was correct. Commissioner Paris was concerned about the description of the maintenance facility on page 2 of the Staff Report, where it read, ' maintenance facility has been moved northward and tucked into the slope adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South' Mr Paris asked for clarification of the description. Assistant City Manager Petru stated that it appeared from the submitted plans that the back wall of the maintenance facility was proposed to be the retaining wall and that it would be imbedded in the slope Vice Chairman Cartwright was under the impression that the proposed project would have minimum view impairment from Palos Verdes Drive South or from the adjacent properties located north of the subject site He asked for clarification regarding the homes obscuring the view of the clubhouse and Ms Petru replied that a view analysis was conducted when the project was first proposed and that the developer was required to lower the pad heights of the proposed homes, particularly those located adjacent of Palos Verdes Drive South so that significant view impacts would not occur Chairman Clark suggested that the Commission listen to testimony from the speakers, continue this item to a date certain, and obtain a comprehensive Staff Report based upon the final submissions from the applicant. Mr Clark suggested that the Commission visit the site to analyze the grading which has occurred for the proposed clubhouse and, if necessary, visit the neighboring properties to analyze potential view impairments and other concerns that the public may have Assistant City Manager Petru stated that the maintenance facility would be relocated and as stated in the Conditions of Approval, would require review and approval by both the Planning Commission and City Council In regards to the clubhouse, the Conditions of Approval require the final design would be reviewed and approved by the Commission Ms. Petru stated that since these conditions were originally adopted in 1994 there was a Development Code change which read, 'all of the revisions must be heard by the last body that considered the item' Ms Petru stated that after discussion with the City Attorney it was decided that the appropriate way to handle this situation was to have both the Planning Commission and the Council to review and approve the final design of the clubhouse Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Mr. Ken Zuckerman. (project applicant), 2 EI Portal, Palos Verdes Estates, CA reiterated the revised project description as presented by Staff and stated that he had no problem with the continuance of the proposed project. Mr Zuckerman stated his belief that the revised design of the clubhouse had reduced potential view impacts and that he would be Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1998 Page 9 glad to answer questions for the Commission Mr Zuckerman stated that he felt a silhouette construction could be misleading since it would not take into account the future homes to be built between Palos Verdes Drive South and the clubhouse site Commissioner Paris requested that Mr. Zuckerman provide a view section analysis indicating Palos Verdes Drive South on one side, the ocean view on the other side, and the site lines projecting the height of the proposed clubhouse to assist the Commission and the public to visualize the view impacts more clearly Mr. Zuckerman replied that this information would be part of the application He also pointed out that increasing the size of the clubhouse would not result in an increase in the capacity of the clubhouse Ms. Louise Shipman 3948 Admirable Drive, was not opposed to the proposed project However, she requested that the developer construct a silouhette so that the public may be able to see how the proposed structure could effect the view of the surrounding neighborhood Chairman Clark asked the applicant of the feasibility of installing a couple of poles with flagging so that the public could visualize the proposed clubhouse and the height of the proposed homes within the tract. Mr. Zuckerman replied that the difficulty with putting up poles to represent the homes was that most of the area is gnatcatcher nesting area and is currently active. Chairman Clark asked if was alright to visit the clubhouse site and Mr Zuckerman replied that it was fine. Chairman Clark asked for Commission comments and discussion regarding this item Vice Chairman Cartwright believed that the key issue was the view impact of the proposed clubhouse and stated that the finished grading and completion of the proposed homes in the tract would mitigate the problem He felt that it would be very helpful to have a point of reference and suggested that the developer construct poles with markers from Palos Verdes Drive South to the ocean indicating the maximum ridge heights of the buildings Commissioner Alberio believed that constructing poles would not be useful. Once the Commission visits the subject site and analyzes the building pads of the proposed Planning Commission Minutes June 23,1988 Page 10 clubhouse and the maintenance facility it would be easier to visualize the proposed buildings and potential view impairments that may be created by the homes Commissioner Paris suggested utilizing helium balloons as maximum ridge height markers for reference at the subject property Commissioner Vannorsdall concurred with Commissioner Alberio's comments and stated constructing poles would be misleading instead of helpful to the public and the Commission Commissioner Alberio asked if the proposed revisions would have to go through the Coastal Commission and Assistant City Manager Petru replied that it was not required Chairman Clark moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to a date certain at the subject site to review and discuss the proposed plans and if offered by the residents in the surrounding area to visit their homes to analyze concerns in regards to potential view impacts of the proposed clubhouse, and that a decision on whether to require a silouhette be deferred at this time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Chairman Clark and the Commission discussed a date for the site visit and Mr Zuckerman intervened and suggested for the safety of the public that the site visit take place on a day when grading operations are ceased such as Sunday or a weekday after 5 30 It was the consensus of the Commission to meet at the subject site at 2:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 28, 1998. Commissioner Alberio asked if the Commission would be in violation with the Brown Act because of the short notice for the site visit and Assistant City Manager Petru replied that the Commission would not be in any violation since the Public Hearing of this item was continued to a date certain The motion was passed by a unanimous roll -call vote, (6-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 910 P M there was a brief recess until the meeting reconvened at 9.20 P M Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1998 Page 11 NEW,BUSINES5 5. CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT WORKSHOP: Before the Staff Report was presented to the Commission Chairman Clark informed the Commission that he had an informal discussion with Director/Secretary Rotas and suggested workshops between the Commission and Council be conducted Director/Secretary Rojas stated that at the meeting of June 16, 1998 the Council agreed to schedule a joint workshop with the Commission and requested that Staff return to the next Council Meeting on July 7, 1998 with tentative meeting dates. Mr Rojas stated at that meeting the City Council discussed lot coverage issues and CCR's. He stated that Staffs approach was to give the Council a list of three or four alternate dates in July and August to select from such as the second or fourth Tuesdays or fifth Thursdays of the month to conduct the workshop. Chairman Clark asked the Commission for comments regarding discussion topics for the joint workshop. Commissioner Paris suggested discussion of modifications of prior approved projects relating to recent Planning Commission actions that have been overruled by the Council Vice Chairman Cartwright concurred with Commissioner Paris' comments and stated that it would be worthwhile Chairman Clark suggested discussion on Height Variations and the Council's philosophy on issues of neighborhood compatibility and design of additions Mr Clark also suggested discussion in reviewing the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan which required amendments and updating Commissioner Albeno suggested discussion of attendance of a Commissioner at future Council meetings to answer questions, particularly items that were appealed. Vice Chairman Cartwright suggested discussion of considering the tenure term of the Commission members to increase from 2 to four years Commissioner Alberio suggested discussion of use of the Commission members to delegate the Council's extended responsibilities such as events that the Council members are unable to attend Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1998 Page 12 s Chairman Clark suggested that the Commission contact Staff to schedule availability of alternate meeting dates. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that Staff will report to the Council a list of topics for the Council meeting of July 7, 1998 Chairman Clark asked Staff to read back the list of discussion topics which will be forwarded to the Council Director/Secretary Rojas read as follows 1) changes to prior approved protects by the Commission and overruled by the Council, 2) dialogue on the Council's philosophy on Height Variations; 3) review of the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan for revisions and update, and 4) tenure of Commissioner term from 2 years to 4 years, Commissioner representation at future Council Meetings, and delegating to Commission members to attend meetings that the Council is unavailable to attend. The Commission selected discussion topics and tentative dates to meet for the City Council and the Planning Commission Joint Workshop. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDA Staff 6. PRE -AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 14, 1998, Commission COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) ADJOURNMENT At 9:49 P.M. the meeting was adjourned to the Ocean Trails project site on Sunday, June 28, 1998 at 2:00 P.M. The motion was moved by Commissioner Vannorsdall, seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6-0). N.�WCMINMNW23M Planning Commission Minutes June 23,1998 Page 13