Loading...
PC MINS 19990126Approved 02/09/99 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 7*00 P M by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commission Paris led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL Present. Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, Paris, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Slayden, and Chairman Cartwright Absent. Commissioner Clark was absent/excused Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson. Chairman Cartwright briefly introduced the Planning Commission to the audience and Director/Secretary Rojas introduced the Planning staff APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to approved the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the agenda was approved, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Council Policy Items Director/Secretary Rojas pointed out to the Commission that the City Council Minutes from the meeting of December 15, 1998 and January 9, 1999 were included in their agenda packets for informational purposes Staff Director/Secretary Rous also informed the Commission that he had distributed seven items of late correspondence: 1) A copy of the Draft Antenna Ordinance that has been forwarded to the City Council, 2) A memorandum regarding the joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting on the Long Point Specific Plan, 3) A memorandum on the major projects likely to be considered by the Commission during 1999, 4) A packet containing the Commissioner and staff resumes; 5) A copy of a letter from staff sent to Mr Abrams regarding his mailbox inspection; 6) A copy of a letter regarding signage at Tract 46651 (Item No. 4), and, 7) A memorandum discussing the League of California Cities Planners Institute Conference registration and hotel reservations. Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall informed the Commission he would be out of town during the week of February 8 and 9 and would therefore not be able to attend the scheduled meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Several Commissioners stated they had not received the minutes of December 22, 1998 and January 6, 1999 Chairman Cartwright suggested continuing the review of those minutes until the next meeting Director/Secretary Rotas agreed but added that staff was hoping to get all of the approved minutes to the City Council for the February 2, 1999 meeting as that was the night the City Council would be reviewing the Antenna Ordinance. If the minutes are not approved this evening, staff will forward to the City Council the minutes as they are written, but they will be unofficial draft minutes. 1. Minutes of December 22, 1998 2. Minutes of January 69 1999 3. Minutes of January 12, 1999 Vice Chair Lyon pointed out on page 3, line 3, the word "made" should be inserted after "have been". Commissioner Paris noted at the bottom of page 3 he had asked a question to staff and there appeared to be no response to that question in the minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2$, 1999 PAGE 2 • Commissioner Slayden requested that on page 4, in the first line of the last paragraph, the word "process" be changed to "use" He requested "transfer of be changed to "transferred" In the fourth line he added the word "the" and replaced "with" with "that indicates" to make the sentence complete Chairman Cartwright pointed out that on page 4, last paragraph, third line the word "Commission" should be "Ad -Hoc Committee". Commissioner Paris stated that on page 5, sixth paragraph, he had asked Mr. Clarkson how many antennas could meet the projected area requirement and his answer was two or three, rather than the generic answer reflected in the minutes. Vice Chair Lyon asked that on page 6, middle of the page, "cross sectional area" be changed to "visual area". On page 7 Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that the vote on the motion reflect that he did vote yes, however with the comments that he preferred the December 17, 1998 version Further, he requested that the two pages of material he had read to the Commission at that time be included in the minutes. He stated he had requested, in writing, the material be included in the minutes Chairman Cartwright suggested making the document an attachment to the Minutes. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Minutes of January 12, 1999 as amended, and continue the Minutes of December 22, 1998 and January 6, 1999 to the next regular meeting of the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Variance No. 441: Warmington Homes (applicant), Crest Road/Highridge. (ES) Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report He explained that this Variance had originally been heard by the Commission on January 12, 1999 and at that time the Commission directed the applicants to reconsider the size and location of the signs At this time, Warmington Homes was asking for two, twenty four square foot signs He explained the location of both signs and how those locations were determined He also explained that the City Sign Ordinance allows for one sign to be placed at the development, and does not take into account the unusual circumstance, as in this case, of two separate developers Therefore, staff felt two separate signs were warranted for the preservation of the property rights of each of the owners. Mr. Schonborn felt this modified proposal addressed the concerns of some of the Commissioners at the last meeting and recommended approving the application PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 3 0 Commissioner Vannorsdall asked staff how close the two signs would be to each other. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated the two signs would be perpendicular to Crest Road and approximately 500 feet apart. Vice Chair Lyon moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Jim Warmington (applicant) 3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa stated he had talked to Mr Carter Comaford (president of the Monaco Homeowners Association), who at the last meeting had concerns regarding the signs, and Mr Comaford was now satisfied with the compromise reached regarding the size and placement of the two signs. He commented that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have Commissioner Paris commented that he liked the idea that Warmington Homes had made the adjustments as suggested by the Commission at the last meeting Chairman Cartwright stated that at the last meeting he had concerns about having multiple signs as there could possibly be a public safety problem, traffic problem, or just too much clutter along the street. He had asked if they could possibly use only one sign. He asked Mr Warmington why he felt two signs were necessary Mr. Warmington responded that it was important the home buyer understand there are two builders associated with this tract, not only so the buyer will visit both sales offices, but also from a legal standpoint in the future He felt it was necessary to eliminate as many connections between the two builders as possible. Chairman Cartwright wondered why that couldn't be accomplished on one thirty two square foot sign. Mr Warmington answered that in their legal counsel's opinion, putting the information about two developers on one sign could possibly be too convoluted to home buyers as they drove by, and they may assume there is a partnership between the builders. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated she has followed the building of these homes since it was initiated She encouraged the Commission to allow Warmington Homes as much leeway as possible so they would be able to sell their homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 4 , 0 1] Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Cartwright repeated his concerns regarding the placement of two signs as opposed to one sign, as it could be a safety hazard as well as create clutter on Crest Road. Commissioner Paris commented that this was a unique situation where there were different types of homes with different owners and different entrance locations. He felt this necessitated two different signs. Chairman Cartwright stated that he felt the use of a Variance should be reserved for very unusual and highly extraordinary circumstances. He did not feel that the dual ownership of this tract fell into the category as extraordinary. Therefore, he did not feel this situation met the purpose of a Variance application and did not feel comfortable using a Variance for this type of request Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that this Commission was entitled to determine if a situation was unusual and if a Variance applied Commissioner Slayden moved to accept staff recommendations as presented, thereby adopting P.0 Resolution 99-02, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (5-1) with Chairman Cartwright dissenting. Chairman Cartwright commented that he was not against allowing signage for Warmington Homes, he just felt that having one sign was a better option 6. Variance No. 437, Coastal Permit No. 148, and Grading Permit No. 2051: U.S. Dhurandar, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West (KF) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report and reminded the Commission that this application had originally come before them in October 1998 and was denied without prejudice so that the applicant could redesign the home to meet all required findings of the various applications The applicants had requested a continuance to redesign Now, however, the 90 day deadline of the Permit Streamlining Act is on January 30, 1999 so a decision will have to be made by the Commission this evening. Mr. Fox stated the new design had completely eliminated the second floor of the house which reduces the ridgeline, reduced the overall size of the house which brought the lot coverage requirement into compliance with the code required 25% maximum, and greatly reduced the quantity of grading required to construct the residence Commissioner Slayden commended staff on the thorough job of the staff report PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 5 Commissioner Paris commented that he thought there may have been some shifting of the property resulting in some visible cracks of the existing residence He wondered what provisions had been made to make sure this would not be a problem with the new residence. Associate Planner Fox answered that the applicants have submitted a geological report to the city's geotechnical consultant which has been approved Commissioner Paris noted that he was pleased the second story was eliminated, however he noted that the footprint of the proposed residence had not been reduced. He wondered if there had been any attempt to try to reduce the footprint. Associate Planner Fox answered that the size of the footprint of the proposed residence was also noted as a concern by staff There had been a problem with lot coverage, but that was mostly due to size of the proposed driveway, which has since been reduced The current design meets lot coverage and setback requirements Commissioner Vannorsdall asked staff if this particular area was in an area identified as view corridor by the city. Associate Planner Fox responded that this particular site did not fall within any view corridors as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan. However, he did point out that there were policies in the Coastal Specific Plan that encourage a design that minimizes intrusions into views where it is feasible to do so when a property is not in a view corridor Commissioner Vannorsdall commented that it appeared in an eastbound direction that there would be some view blockage from the road if you are travelling on the lower half of Palos Verdes Drive. He did not feel there would be view blockage from the other side of the road, which is up higher His other concern was the type and amount of exterior lighting that would be used for the new residence. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Lyon. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Cordell Ross {on behalf of the applicant} 22882 Ocean Breeze Way, Laguna Nigel began by explaining that following the staff recommendations and concerns, and meetings with the neighbors, he redesigned the residence to what was presented tonight He realized that the height of the residence was a concern and pointed out on a drawing the entry area, which represented the maximum height of the structure He explained that at this area the height was 15 feet 10 inches He explained that he incorporated flat areas and valleys into the structure design to help create viewing areas over the structure Addressing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 6 0 • the lighting, he commented that they would adhere to any recommendations made by staff Commissioner Alberio asked if there would be any lighting on the pilasters surrounding the residence Mr Ross responded that there would be no lighting on the pilasters He explained that most of the pilasters were existing. He added that they would only be adding two or three new pilasters and refinishing the existing pilasters to match the new residence He added that any lighting would be low walkway lighting leading to the structure and possibly a light by the fence that would identify that area as the entrance to the property Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the heights of the other ridgelines of the proposed residence Mr Ross noted that the other roof ridgelines of the residence were all lower than the entry area ridgeline, and not even the chimneys extended over the 16 foot level Commissioner Vannorsdall wondered if the overall height of the structure could be lowered since it was proposed to be built on a raised foundation. He wondered if it would be possible to lower the grade of the property Mr Ross answered that the house will be built on a raised foundation because it will be a better foundation providing full stability He did not propose further grading, as it was an issue with staff, and lowering the house would cause the driveway to be too steep, over 15 percent grade Commissioner Paris complimented the new design, but wondered if there was a way to reduce the height of the entrance and corridor area. Mr Ross explained that there were several roof areas that tie into the entry area and it would be very difficult to simply redesign the roof area over the entrance He also explained that this was the entry area and the ceilings were approximately 14 feet in the interior He stated part of the design concept was a grand entry and that he tried to create as much as he could within the standards set by the City Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Ross if he had any comments regarding the letter from Mr Kaminskas dated September 21, 1998 where Mr Kaminskas expressed concerns over the potential future use of a house that large Mr Ross answered that he found the letter very offensive and had no other comment regarding the letter He commented that he will create more of a view for Mr Kaminskas by removing trees that presently block the view PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 7 0 Commissioner Slayden complimented Mr. Ross on the outstanding job he has done in staying within the guidelines set forth by the Commission and the staff Commissioner Pans asked Mr Ross why he designed a wet bar in the maid's suite Mr Ross answered that the area was actually a mini kitchen, with a microwave, a sink and a refrigerator Associate Planner Fox stated that this was the first staff had heard of the area being used as a mini kitchen, and suggested the Commission may want to add a condition to the Resolution requiring a covenant to be executed prohibiting the area to be used as a second unit in the future Michael Kaminskas 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West stated that he lives directly across the street from the proposed residence He stated he was here to oppose the project as it would negatively impact the enjoyment of his property, his ocean view, and his privacy. He explained that the existing house was 2800 square feet and Is not visible from his property He commented that the City code stated that if a house is demolished and rebuilt, the new house could be increased in size by 100%. Therefore, in this case he could reasonably expect a new house of up to 5,732 square feet. He felt the purpose of this code was to discourage over -building In the case of the proposed residence, it would be three and one half times the size of the existing residence This is his definition of over- building. He felt many people would be upset in hearing the Planning Commission would allow something to be built that was so much larger than what the Code allows His biggest concern with this project, however, was that the proposed residence would stand 10 feet higher than the existing house. He felt roof lines could be lowered to help his view. In conclusion, he did not want to appear unreasonable, he just would like the applicant to work with him a little to reduce the size of the house where possible He felt it was a wonderful project and on the right track, it just needed a little refining. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Kaminskas if his main concern with the project was the height Mr Kaminskas answered that it was his belief that the larger footprint of the house enables the applicant to build higher He explained that by building further out toward the front of the property it moves the point from where the sixteen foot measurement is taken higher Therefore, if a 5,000 square foot house were to be built it would automatically be four feet lower. Commissioner Vannorsdall commented that the Planning Commission is empowered to make decisions that go beyond the code when the situation warrants it Secondly, he felt there were large homes near the proposed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 8 residence and because of that he felt it warranted the Commission to go beyond what was specified in the Code. Mr. Kaminskas stated that the house next door was the only neighbor of the proposed residence, and that house is under 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Vannorsdall disagreed stating that part of the neighborhood is below the proposed residence, on Laurel Drive and Marguerite Drive. Chairman Cartwright asked staff, if this were a new home being proposed on a vacant lot, what would be the maximum size allowed for a home on that one acre lot Associate Planner Fox answered that it would be allowed to be approximately 30,000 square feet. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Lyon. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris commented that the new design was a tremendous improvement over the previous design. However, he felt the house size could have been reduced a little further without impinging on the utilization of the property Commissioner Slayden stated he would recommend the plan as it was presented He felt that the architect did a wonderful fob in working with the staff and the recommendations of the Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall asked staff if there were any conditions regarding the many trees that are on the property Associate Planner Fox pointed out Condition No. 20 of the Resolution that discussed foliage that needed to be trimmed or removed or otherwise modified in order to restore views to properties across the street He stated there were also a large number of trees and shrubs presently located in the area of the proposed structure that would be removed. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that with the removal of the trees and foliage, the views from the property across the street may be greatly improved Commissioner Albeno expressed his concern in regard to the house exceeding the maximum size Vice Chair Lyon stated he supported the project as it was a reasonable development PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 9 0 0 Chairman Cartwright agreed with the Vice Chair and stated that this was a significant improvement over the original project He commented that while there is some view impairment, views under 16 feet are not protected Director/Secretary Rous reminded the Commission that there would be three conditions added to the Resolution; two regarding the regulation of exterior lighting, which would be the language directly out of the Development Code, and a condition requiring the applicant to record a second unit covenant which would prohibit the maid's area from being used as a second unit. Commissioner Slayden moved to accept the staff recommendations, with the added conditions regarding lighting and the second unit covenant, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-03, seconded by Vice Chair Lyon. Approved, (4.2) with Commissioners Albedo and Paris dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Cartwright called for a brief recess and 8.50 P.M. until the meeting reconvened at 9 00 P M PUBLIC HEARINGS f. Tentative Parcel Maty No. 25271 and Environmental Assessment No. 703: Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend Company, northwest corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge Road. (KF) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report. He explained that the application presented tonight was submitted in August, 1998 Regarding the Tentative Parcel Map, the Commission, pursuant to the Development Code, must determine the map is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act. He stated in this case, the applicant was proposing to divide the property into three parcels and sell to different parties There is no development or physical improvements that will happen as a result of this map He further mentioned the relationship of this project to the Marriott protect, which is identified on the Tentative Map as "not a part" He explained that the reason staff was recommending a continuance of this item was to allow the City Council to adopt the Resolutions regarding the Marriott Lifecare Facility project next week This would avoid the possibility of any conflict between the two maps Further, there will be a condition for an easement on the final map that will allow for temporary access for offsite grading to allow the construction of the Marriott project He mentioned that there was another party, Colony Holdings, who apparently have an agreement with Marriott that involves parcels 1, 2, and 3. However, their application is incomplete and has been for approximately 18 months. Commissioner Albeno requested clarification as to how the parcels were zoned PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 10 Associate Planner Fox answered that almost all of parcel one is zoned institutional, parcel two is half institutional and half open space hazard, and almost all of parcel three is zoned open space hazard Commissioner Paris asked staff if they were concerned, after subdividing the lots, with the possibility of dealing with three different applicants who would not be looking at the common problems of the area collectively Associate Planner Fox responded that staff did not see that aspect of the subdivision as a problem, as the lots created would not be capable of supporting any type of development without further city approval Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Mike Walker (representing Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend Company) 25200 La Paz Road Laguna Hills stated he was attending the meeting to answer any questions the Commission may have for him. Commissioner Vannorsdall began by asking what the objective was of splitting the parcels. Mr Walker answered that when the property was sold to the Marriott Company, a provision was placed in the purchase agreement that required the purchaser (Marriott) to give back lots 2 and 3 after the lots were created. He does not know why three lots were created instead of two lots Mr Walker also added that they have had people contact them, unsolicited, asking to use the corner parcel for an institutional use He stated that his company would prefer to see the corner left as institutional zoning rather than rezoned for houses. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he was bothered by the fact that lot three had a potential for landslide hazard. If lot three started to slide it would take lot one with it. He wondered who would be responsible for that. He didn't understand why Mr Walker's company wanted lot three and why he felt they were contractually obligated to take it. Mr Walker stated that his interpretation of the documents requires them to take lot 3 with lot 2 He cannot take only lot 2 back. He stated that the company may eventually sell lot 2 with lot 3 and pass the responsibility on to the next party Commissioner Slayden was bothered by the fact that the parcel would be split before anyone knew what was going to be done on the zoning of these parcels Mr Walker added a comment regarding the placement of an easement on the parcel map He recommended a right of entry, which would exist solely for the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 11 0 0 grading purpose and then it would become null and void He further stated that there were no overlapping drainage problems on this property. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road reminded the Commission that this property is right across the street from the property that collapsed down the hillside last year She did not feel a Negative Declaration was appropriate in this situation because of the landslide potential Chairman Cartwright asked staff if the proposal before them would allow for the building of single family residences. Associate Planner Fox stated that the property is presently zoned for an Institutional use and that this proposal did not ask for a change in the land use zoning. Commissioner Vannorsdall was concerned that any zone change request should come before the parcel map. Associate Planner Fox answered that there is a pending application, which is incomplete, requesting a zone change. That application was submitted by Crestridge Estates several months ago and is pending Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if this parcel map should be delayed until the City Council decides on the change of zoning Director/Secretary Rotas reiterated that this parcel map was not a development project. He agreed with Commissioner Vannorsdall that a development project tentative map should be acted on concurrently or after a zone change. However, in speaking with the City Attorney regarding this map, which is for conveyance purposes only, the map approval can occur before a zone change decision on the property. Commissioner Slayden again commented that he was concerned about splitting up the pieces of property before knowing what was going to be proposed for the different properties. Commissioner Paris added that the Commission would not just be splitting up land, they would be splitting out risk or segmenting off exposure and liability He felt that was a critical issue Chairman Cartwright asked Commissioner Paris what he would propose to do Commissioner Paris answered that right now he had a problem with any kind of division of the land and the parcel had to be considered as one piece of property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 12 Vice Chair Lyon was also concerned that this issue was before the Commission before there was any type of plan Chairman Cartwright suggested the Commission review the Environmental Impact Report for the area and continue the discussion at the next meeting. Commissioner Slayden was uncomfortable with that suggestion He felt the Commission would be conducting a public hearing for something they knew nothing about Commissioner Alberio stated all the Planning Commission was being asked to do was approve a lot split for conveyance purposes, nothing else. Chairman Cartwright agreed with Commissioner Alberio He didn't know why it was necessary to wait for a future decision on the zoning He reminded the Commission that this map was for conveyance purposes only and any future development proposals would have to come before the Planning Commission for approval Commissioner Slayden moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was reopened. Commissioner Slayden asked Mr. Walker if there was a necessity to take action on this request immediately, or was it something that could be delayed for some period. Mr Walker replied that there was a time deadline on their agreement with Marriott Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Lyon. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Cartwright stated that the Commission was being asked to continue this item to February 9, 1999 He noted the Planning Commission had several questions which staff and Mr. Walker could possibly answer at the February 9 meeting. Commissioner Paris stated the first question he had was regarding the split of the liability and the future ownership and responsibility of the property (the unbuildable area) Commissioner Slayden stated he questioned whether staff had a recommendation as far as keeping this area zoned for institutional use He wondered if the city was running out of areas that were zoned for institutional development PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 13 Commissioner Vannorsdall questioned if this process was being done to allow for an easier future rezoning of the property Commissioner Paris suggested having a representative from Marriott at the February 9 meeting Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the staff recommendations and continue the public hearing to the meeting of February 9, 1999, with the questions asked by the Commission addressed in that staff report, seconded by Commissioner Paris. Approved, (7-0). ,111 01—' 1n**i NONE ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that at future meetings the Chairman open and close the public hearing, rather than have a motion from the Commission There being no objection, it was so ordered. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road commented that the Long Point Specific Plan was filled with mistakes and wanted the Commission to be aware of that before they met with the City Council regarding the Plan. /_1� : ► t i ► 1 At 10:03 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting to Monday, February 8, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Room at Hesse Park to conduct a joint meeting with the City Council on the Long Point Specific Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. W APClmi nutes119990126.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 14