Loading...
PC MINS 19981027CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1998 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED 11/10/9qy", 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 Recording Secretary Atuatasi led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark Absent None. Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Principal Planner Snow, and Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planners Louie and Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Albeno moved to consider the Agenda Items in the following order: 1, 4, 2, 3, 5 and 6. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Council Policy Items Principal Planner Snow pointed out to the Commission that the approved City Council Minutes of September 15, 1998 were included in the Commission packets for their information He updated the Commission on the Council's discussion pertaining to the approval of two Planning Projects which included 1) Public Hearing of Height Variation No 859 and Site Plan Review No 7988 - Appeal (Edgerton Project) and 2) the Development Code Amendments (i e, roof deck prohibition and neighborhood capability) which went into effect on October 15, 1998 Chairman Clark inquired on the status of the Council's action on Site Plan Review No 8311, Grading Permit No 2048, and Sign Permit No 961 - Appeal (Highridge Car Wash Project) and Director/Secretary Rojas replied that the City Council would consider the public hearing of this item at the November 17, 1998 Council Meeting Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that this item was discussed at the Traffic Committee Meeting of October 26, 1998 which was attended by Commissioners Alberio and Vannorsdall Director/Secretary Rojas also informed the Commission that at the City Council Meeting of October 20, 1998 the Marriott Project was on the City Council's Agenda, but was tabled due to outstanding geology reports Staff Staff distributed two items of late correspondence one each for Agenda Item Nos 5 and 4 Also distributed to the Commission were copies of Staffs memorandum regarding 'Inventory of Service Station Signage' as requested by the Commission Commissioner Alberio suggested that Staff forward copies of the memorandum regarding 'Inventory of Service Station Signage" to the City Council since the public hearing for the appeal of the Highridge Car Wash project would be considered at the Council Meeting of November 17, 1998 Staff indicated that the memorandum would be included in the City Council Report. Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall announced that he and Commissioner Alberio attended the Traffic Committee meeting on Monday, October 26, 1998 and gave a brief overview of the Highridge Car Wash Project considered that evening. Commissioner Lyon attended the Mayors Monthly breakfast and stated that discussion focused on the Community Leaders Breakfast scheduled for October 31, 1998 at Hesse Park and the City's 25th Anniversary Banquet to be held on November 6, 1998 at the Los Verdes Country Club Planning Commission Follow -Agenda October 27, 1998 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of October 13, 1998 Commissioner Paris requested that on page 2, paragraph 3, line 2, an insertion be made to read as, 'He believed that the applicant was in error and could have filed for an extension...` on page 10, paragraph 4, line 2 a modification be made to read as, '—would have to pay the cost..., and, line 4 be modified to read as, '...costs were not included in...' Commissioner Lyon requested that on page 6, paragraph 12, line 2 be modified to read as, '...motion be made, a..., and on page 7, paragraph 1, line 1 be modified to read as, '...so that the City would be held...' Commissioner Alberio requested that on page 2, paragraph 3, line 5, be modified to read as, '...Commission member may appeal any...' Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the Minutes of October 13, 1998 as amended. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed (6-0-1) with Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining as he was not present at that meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. Agenda Item No. 4 was considered by the Commission at this time PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance No. 437. Height Variation No. 865, Coastal Permit No. 148 and Grading Permit No. 2051: U.S. Dhurandhar, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Fox stated that the applicant requested a continuance in order to make modifications and address the concerns that were indicated in the Staff Report Associate Planner Fox stated that he spoke to the applicant's architect on Monday, October 26, 1998 and the architect advised Staff that it would take approximately one month to re -design and complete modifications for the proposed project Chairman Clark asked Staff if an extension for continuance of the action deadline was required by the applicant and Staff responded that it was. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 3 0 0 Chairman Clark asked if the applicant was present that evening and Staff replied and that the applicant was not present, but that the applicant's attorney was available to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Mr Stan Denis, (applicant's attorney) 2377 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 310, Torrance, CA stated that he was present to reiterate the request of his client for continuance to revise his plans Chairman Clark asked if he had the authority to grant the applicant's extension under the 'Streamlining Act' for the continuance of this item and Mr Denis replied that he did have the authority, and he granted a 90 -day extension of the deadline. Mr James Reed} 7416 Via Lorado Drive, stated that it was unnecessary to express his objection on the proposed protect since this item was being continued. Mr. Reed requested that he be notified of the next scheduled hearing for this item Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Commissioner Lyon moved to table this item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. With no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). Staff noted that this item would be renoticed when rescheduled for Planning Commission consideration. At this time, Senior Planner Snow informed the Commission that a request had been received by Staff asking that Agenda Item No 3 be considered next due to the medical condition of the applicant's spouse Commissioner Alberio moved to re -consider the Agenda order. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (7-0) Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to re -order the agenda and consider Agenda Item No. 3 at this time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 4 3. Minor Exception Permit No. 538 and Encroachment Permit No. 29;� Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and pointed out that Mr Abrams (applicant) was advised by Code Enforcement Staff that block pilasters constructed in the front -yard setback area that exceeded the 42 inch height limitation and that an after -the -fact approval of a Minor Exception Permit was required Code Enforcement Staff also determined that some of the pilasters encroached onto the right-of-way of Oceanaire Drive which required approval of an Encroachment Permit Associate Planner Fox stated that the applicant submitted an Encroachment application for the six pilasters located within the public right-of-way and also submitted a Minor Exception application for the four pilasters that exceeded the 42 height limitation During the 15 -day public comment period Staff received written comments from the Del Cerro Homeowners Association and residents within the neighborhood in opposition of the applicant's request Associate Planner Fox stated that Staff believed the necessary findings could be made for the Minor Exception Permit, but that the granting of an Encroachment Permit was not warranted Therefore, Staff recommended conditionally approving the Minor Exception Permit and denying the Encroachment Permit, via Minute Order. Chairman Clark asked the Commission if they had questions for Staff Commissioner Paris inquired if the other improvements at the applicant's property were made with the proper approvals and if the applicant had any other violations of the Building Code Chairman Clark inquired if there were any after -the -fact requests submitted for the subject property in the past as indicated in the written comments from the neighbors in opposition of the applicant's request. Associate Planner Fox replied to the Commissioners inquiries and stated that the applicant submitted an antenna application for an after -the -fact approval of his antenna structure and to this date the issue is still unresolved due to the antenna moratorium Vice Chairman Cartwright inquired how the light fixture at the subject property intruded into the adjacent neighbor's property and Staff replied that the adjacent neighbor's windows faced the corner of the subject property where the light fixture was located in regards to public safety issues relative to the Encroachment Permit, Vice Chairman Cartwright stated while visiting the subject site, he noticed that encroachment occurred at almost every property along the street including properties adjacent to the project site. Vice Chairman Cartwright noted that the subject property had more area for a vehicle to exit the driveway than the surrounding homes and felt that the applicant's proposal was consistent and compatible with other walls in the area Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 5 0 9 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Mr. Mark Abrams. 44 Oceanaire Drive, distributed photographs of pilasters in front of his home and explained that his contractor dug into the slope and increased the width of street resulting in more parking area at the front of his property than before. Mr Abrams pointed out in the photographs distributed for the Commission's review that some of the nearby properties did not have ample space area for parking as his property did. The photographs depicted views of nearby properties with boulders, shrubbery, and a mail box presumably in the right-of-way Mr. Abrams discussed some alternatives for the light fixture at his residence which spilled out light towards the neighboring residence of 46 Oceanaire Drive and suggested that he could either 1) plant shrubbery around the light fixture in that the illumination of the light does not intrude onto the adjacent neighbor's property; 2) install a light shield on the light fixture; or, 3) leave the fixture as is, but disconnect the electricity Mr. Abrams stated that his contractor spoke with Staff who told him what was allowed for him to pursue construction of the block fence pilasters and that Staff provided their opinion as to the right-of-way location at the subject site Mr. Abrams stated that he obtained his own surveyor to determine the edge of his property line after the wall/ pilasters were constructed Chairman Clark asked if there were additional after -the -fact permits filed for work on the site, and Staff stated there were a number of after -the -fact applications as well as a number of applications proposed prior to commencing work. Commissioner Alberio expressed his concerns regarding the encroachment issues and believed that the applicant should hold the City harmless for any potential hazards which could result in litigations since the applicant's wall and pilasters encroached upon the public's right-of-way Mr. Kevin Law, (applicant's contractor) 2117 Penny Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA stated that his client covered most of the issues and informed the Commission that his client was able to provide an ample parking area without the vehicles encroaching into the paved portion of the right-of-way. Mr Law further stated the violation was the result of an inadvertent mistake. Commissioner Lyon pointed out that the original permit for the wall stated a maximum wall height in the setback area to be 42" Mr Law stated he was unclear on whether that height included the light fixtures or not, and that when asked to, he corrected the error and brought the height down Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 6 Mrs. Cheryl Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, briefly discussed her health situation and stated that she was not prepared to speak, but was available for Commission questions The Commission briefly discussed lot access, parking and related issues. Mr. Eli Amador, 23 Crestwind Drive, represented and spoke on behalf of the Del Cerro Homeowners Association and stated that the homeowners requested that the applicant's request for an Encroachment Permit be denied as indicated in their letter addressed to the City The Commission questioned Mr. Amador about the widespread encroachments along Oceanaire Drive, and questioned why this project was viewed differently. Mr. Amador stated that all encroachments were a problem, and that they were involved now because of receiving notice of the proposal When asked if the Del Cerro Homeowners Association had researched the issue, looked at the conditions along Oceanaire Drive, or consulted homeowners prior to issuing the letter of opposition, Mr Amador indicated that none of these steps had been taken Mr fan MacDonald, 47 Oceanaire Drive, stated that Mr Abrams had made vast improvements to his home He stated his belief that the applicant had his property surveyed prior to the commencing construction and therefore had no excuse for building in the right-of-way Mr. MacDonald concluded his testimony by explaining that the boulders placed at his front yard property line were to prevent use of his lot for parking and turning around Mr. Abrams re -approached the podium for rebuttal and stated that his property was surveyed, but after wall construction commenced. Commissioner Alberto moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had questions for Staff. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Staff about the federal requirements for a mail box and Staff replied that the City allowed 2 square feet by 2 square feet in the public right-of- way and that the height of 36 to 48 inches was dictated by the requirements of the postal service. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked how far do the pilasters encroach out into the public right-of-way and Staff replied approximately 2 to 3 feet Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how many lightbulbs were in the light fixtures and Staff replied that there were 3 light bulbs in each light fixture Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 7 0 • Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item Commissioner Paris felt that the fence pilasters and staircase could have been constructed further back. Commissioner Lyon stated that he is generally opposed to after -the -fact approvals however, in this case what had been done was not unreasonable since other properties owners in the area had similar improvements Commissioner Lyon was disappointed with the letter from the Del Cerro Homeowners Association and felt that it was inaccurate and not properly researched Commissioner Lyon concurred with the alternatives suggested by Mr Abrams in regards to the light fixture issue and preferred that the light fixture be disconnected or installing a shield over the light fixture to prevent illumination onto the neighboring property Commissioner Lyon found it difficult not to permit the encroachment since other nearby residents had similar or more extreme encroachments Commissioner Slayden stated that protection of the right-of-way is important, but that in this case there would be no significant traffic impact and that the proposed improvements enhanced the appearance of the property He stated his support of Alternative No 3 as indicated in the Staff Report, which was to approve the Minor Exception Permit and the Encroachment Permit. Commissioner Vannorsdall supported the concept of shielding the light fixture and placing a limitation on the wattage being utilized. Commissioner Vannorsdall concurred with the comments of Commissioners Lyon and Slayden, but would like to see a provision made in the conditions for sidewalks preserving the City's ability to install them in the future Commissioner Alberio believed that past encroaching construction should not be a basis for approving new encroachments Further, Commissioner Alberio requested that provisions be included in the conditions indicating that the applicant hold the City harmless from any liability Commissioner Alberio concurred with Commissioner Vannorsdall's comment regarding conditions about sidewalks in which the City could claim back and agreed with Staffs recommendation in approving the Minor Exception Permit, but denying the Encroachment permit. Vice Chairman Cartwright believed that adherence to the Code was important, but in this case could not find that error was malicious, and he believed that efforts were made to comply with the City's Code Vice Chairman Cartwright supported the idea of shielding the light fixture and felt that the retaining walls should permitted as proposed Vice Chairman Cartwright supported approval of the Minor Exception and Encroachment Permits Chairman Clark echoed the comments of his colleagues and supported approval of the Minor Exception and Encroachment Permits Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 8 0 • Commissioner Lyon moved to adopt Alternative No. 3; thereby approving the Minor Exception and Encroachment Permits, with the condition that the light fixtures be limited to 120 watts; the City be held harmless for any liability in association with a block wall in the public right-of-way; and, a light shield be installed to restrict light from shining onto the property of the adjacent neighbor. Commissioner Alberio asked if the motion included a condition where the City had the right to remove the encroachment and Staff commented that the City Council's Encroachment Policy had standard conditions which are applied to the encroachment. Staff stated that the policy included the requirements for the 'Hold Harmless Agreement' and for the owner to submit a covenant agreeing to remove the encroachment within 10 days upon request from the City Staff confirmed that these conditions would be included in the approved Encroachment Permit and wished to make the applicant aware of these conditions, and get agreement to the conditions regarding the standard conditions and the additional condition related to shielding the eastern most light fixture The maker amended his motion to include the comments of Staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed by a roll, (6-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Clark called for a brief recess at 8 55 P M and the meeting reconvened at 9.10PM Agenda Item No 2 was considered by the Commission at this time 2. Variance No. 428 - Revision 'A', and Grading Permit no. 1971 - Revision 'A'; Tom Kristy and Lynn Comer, 30016 Avenida Classica. Assistant Planner Louie briefly summarized the Staff Report and stated that the applicant requested a revision to the original approval by reducing the hillside rear yard setback from 10 feet to 4 feet, and to reduce the total amount of the cubic yards of grading from 90 cubic yards to 75 cubic yards due to the relocation of the proposed retaining wall Assistant Planner Louie stated that the four findings for granting the Variance could be made to allow the reduction of the rear yard hillside setback. Further, it was determined that the modified grading plan reduced the grading quantities and was consistent with the previous approved Grading Application Therefore, Staff recommended approval for the modified Variance and Grading Permits Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 9 Chairman Clark asked if there were any speakers for this Item and Staff replied that there was one request to speak. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed. Mr. George Shaw. (architect) 28101 Lobrook Drive, stated that he was present to answer questions from the Commission Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had questions for the architect and there were none Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this Item and there were none Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-37 thereby approving Variance No. 428 - Revision 'A' and Grading Permit No. 1971 - Revision 'A', subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed by a unanimous roll -call vote, (7-0). Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period 5. Variance No. 439 and Grading Permit No. 2063; Vilma and Hector Beranek, 6790 Crest Road Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant requested to allow construction of a new 5,647 square foot split-level single-family residence on a downward -sloping lot and allow 125 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the proposed project He further indicated the Variance request was to exceed the maximum structure size for the subject lot. Based on an original structure size of 2,140 square feet the maximum structure size is 4,280 square feet Assistant Planner Schonborn pointed out that Staff received a letter of concern from the property owner at 6810 Crest Road (William and Elizabeth Kramer) citing compatibility issues of the proposed residence Staff recommended denial of the Variance as it was felt that not all of the four required findings could not be made to grant the Variance. Staff believed that the grading permit findings were made in a positive manner, but that as part of the overall project recommended denial of the Variance application and the Grading application. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 10 Discussion between Staff and the Commission occurred regarding the baseline structure size, and whether the original structure size at first construction (Staff interpretation) or whether it is more appropriate to use the current existing structure size Vice Chairman Cartwright discussed a scenario whereby properties of similar size could be developed with significantly different maximum structure size depending on whether the property is vacant, developed prior to 1975, or developed after 1975. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Mr. David Olin, (architect) 1243 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, stated that in designing the proposed project, one of his concerns was to minimize impact to the neighborhood. He stated that he had corrected non -conforming setbacks of the existing house at the garage area, tried to minimize grading, terraced the structure at the rear to protect views at the sideyards, tried to control the bulk of the proposed structure, and stated that there was no grading at the end of the subject site. Mr Olin believed that there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and disagreed with the Staff Report since the original structure size was the smallest in the surrounding area Commissioner Alberio asked if he satisfied Mr. Kramer's concern in regards to the compatibility of the proposed residence Mr Olin replied that Mr Kramer visited his office during open house and was aware of the size of the structure and made no comment at that time, but later wrote to Staff indicating the compatibility concern Mr. Beranek. (applicant) 6790 Crest Road, was present to answer questions for the Commission. Chairman Clark asked how long he owned the property and Mr Beranek replied approximately 1-1/2 year Chairman Clark asked if he intended to remodel when he purchased the property and Mr Beranek replied that he had no intentions to remodel, but to demolish and rebuild on the lot At that time, Mrs. Beranek stated that she visited the Planning Department and was told by Staff she could build her home to a maximum of 6,000 square feet. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if he would have purchased the property if he was aware that there was a restriction placed on the property not allowing him to build a structure exceeding 4,200 square feet and Mr Beranek replied that he would not have purchased the property. Commissioner Paris moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 11 • 0 Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this Item Commissioner Slayden disagreed with Staffs recommendation and stated that the appearance of the proposed project was typical in that area Commissioner Slayden stated that the proposed project could be fit into the lot since there was plenty of area. Further, the downsloping lot configuration should also be considered Commissioner Alberto suggested rather than denying the proposed project the applicant, architect, and Staff work together in downsizing the proposed project so that it would comply with the City's Code with regards to the maximum structure size Commissioner Paris was in favor of the applicant's proposal because of the small lot coverage Further the proposed project was located on a downward sloping lot making the front appearance of the proposed home less bulky. Commissioner Lyon agreed with Commissioner Slayden and Paris and felt that the proposed home was designed very well and blended in with the neighborhood Commissioner Lyon felt that there was not enough observable mass to make it appear incompatible with the surrounding homes and supported the applicant's request Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the proposed home would be larger than the surrounding homes and concurred with Commissioner Alberio's comments regarding redesigning the project and believed that consistency with the City's Code should be maintained in this case Vice Chairman Cartwright was in support of the Variance and concurred with Commissioners Slayden, Paris, and Lyon Vice Chairman Cartwright supported the proposal as requested by the applicant and stated that the City's Code should have flexibility Vice Chairman Cartwright further stated that the maximum structure size could have the effect of deflating property values and depriving owners of the opportunity to modify home to current standards. Chairman Clark also favored the applicant's proposal and echoed the comments of Vice Chairman Cartwright regarding the ordinance and then suggested that the topic of 'maximum structure size' be brought back for further discussion He also stated his belief that using the 1960 original structure size is an inappropriate basis for todays housing needs, and that the ordinance is prejudicial to properties originally constructed with smaller homes Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to direct the applicant, architect, and Staff to work together in reducing the size of the proposed project and come back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberto and failed by a roll -call vote (2-5), with Commissioners Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 12 Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt Staff Alternative No. 1 to approve Variance No. 439 and Grading Permit No. 2063, and directed Staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions for consideration at the Commission meeting of November 10, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed by a roll -call vote (5-2), with Commissioners Alberio and Vannorsdall dissenting. NEW BUSINESS ►f�L MW ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 6. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 1998. Commission The Commission requested a future agenda item for discussion of the Development Code in regards to 'maximum structure size'. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue discussed the history of McCarrel Canyon and the fence at Portuguese Pointe + i ! At 10:27 P.M. Vice Chairman Cartwright moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, November 10, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Room at Hesse Park. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. N 1GROUP\PLANNING\PCMINWBNIO-27 98 Planning Commission Minutes October 27,1998 Page 13