Loading...
PC MINS 19991214CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1999 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED I/ P The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Clark led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon, Chairman Cartwright Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rous, Associate Planner Mihranian, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rotas distributed a packet of 30 letters in opposition to Agenda Item No 3 He stated he had two additional letters of opposition to the project that he had received before the meeting and asked the Commission if they would like the two letters distributed The Commission asked that the letters be distributed Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that Code Amendments 44 and 46 would be heard by the City Council on December 21, 1999, that the Commission and Committee applications would be accepted by the City Council until January 14, 2000, and that the Planning, Budding, and Code Enforcement Department would provide a full range of services all day beginning in April Commissioner Paris discussed the pad elevations at Ocean Trails and informed the Commission that staff was preparing a report discussing the chronology of the pad approvals of the site. Vice Chairman Lyon briefly updated the Commission on the Mayor's Breakfast CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 23, 1999 i ! �` i 'i . i i !.!` • � Commissioner Clark noted on page 10 that his comments should be clarified Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. The minutes were approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Alberio and Vannorsdall abstaining since they were not present at that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance No. 462, Variance No. 891, and Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit No. 30: Martha Gaglio and Carlos Amezcua (applicant), 27026 Freeport Road Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report He explained that at the November meeting the Planning Commission had directed the applicant to lower the height and mass of the structure and mitigate the privacy issues with the properties to the east and west of the applicant. He stated that the applicant had reduced the height of the proposed structure by two feet. The garage height had been reduced from 16 feet to 15 feet in height. The applicant modified the proposed windows along the second story east elevation as well as added a 6 -foot high translucent glass wall/railing along the east side of the roof deck To mitigate the privacy issues with the property to the west, the applicant proposed an 8 -foot long, 11 -foot high hedge located along the west side property line Staff determined that the hedge would not create a view impairment to the adjacent property on the west side. Mr. Schonborn concluded by stating that staff believes the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission with modifications Commissioner Alberio asked staff if the neighbors to the west and east of the applicant had found these modifications acceptable Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the two property owners are in agreement with the types of features that the applicant has proposed to mitigate their concerns. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 2 Carlos Amezcua (applicant) 27026 Freeport Road stated that he felt he had modified his project and addressed all of the concerns of the Planning Commission He noted that his neighbors were satisfied with proposals made to mitigate their privacy concerns. He also noted that the loft area on the second floor was not unused space. The space would be used as an office area with a couch, desks, and computers. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Amezcua if he had any intention of reducing the square footage of the proposal, as the Planning Commission had suggested Mr. Amezcua responded that he understood that the Commission requested the mass of the house be reduced, which he had accomplished through the lowering of the roof and the redesign. Commissioner Albeno asked Mr. Amezcua if he had contacted Mrs. Cutler and discussed with her the redesign of the garage Mr. Amezcua answered that he had not contacted Mrs. Cutler since he did not feel that reducing the height of the garage to 14 or 15 feet would allow her the view she desired The garage would have to stay exactly as it is to allow her to keep her view. Commissioner Clark moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Lyon stated that this was a classic example of the Planning Commission giving the applicant direction, and the applicant doing exactly what the Commission requested be done He did not see any basis for the Planning Commission to not approve this application. Commissioner Paris stated he felt the square footage of the structure should have been reduced and felt the second floor was inefficiently designed. He felt there was a more effective way to get the square footage they wanted. Commissioners Slayden, Vannorsdall, Clark and Albeno had no objection to the revised plan Chairman Cartwright agreed that the applicant had returned with a plan that reflected what the Planning Commission had requested be done and commended the applicant on the redesign Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve Variance No. 462, Height Variation No. 891 and Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit No. 30 as presented by staff, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-45, seconded by Commissioner Clark. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Paris dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 3 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 192 -Revision 'B' and Site Plan Review No. 8596 Airtouch Cellular (applicant) Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report He explained the original proposal was to replace the existing concrete monopole structure with a 62 -foot high steel monopole and add three additional antenna panels. The modified proposal calls for a re -location of a 68 -foot high monopole to allow for sufficient distance between antenna panels from different cellular providers as well as a 10 -foot long mast with a 12 - foot long whip antenna. He stated that staff had received a great deal of correspondence from the homeowners association of the condominium complex to the west of California Water Concerns were largely that construction of such a tower would not be compatible with the rural and rustic environment of the peninsula Staff concluded that all findings can be made for the Conditional Use Permit and that the protect is consistent with the Wireless Communications Antenna Guidelines Chairman Cartwright stated that at the October 26 Planning Commission meeting the Commission told the applicant that they would prefer to see one monopole rather than several, even though the one pole would be slightly higher Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he was not present at the original meeting, but had read the report and minutes and felt he was qualified to participate and vote at this meeting Commissioner Paris stated that he had a business relationship with the homeowners association being represented tonight at this hearing, however the individuals were not clients of his. He did not feel that his decision would be influenced in any way because of this The Commission agreed that if Commissioner Paris felt there was no influence involved, he should hear the item Director/Secretary Rous briefly outlined the Antenna Guidelines for the Commission. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Paul Walcott (applicant representing Airtouch) 357 Van Ness Way #150 Torrance stated that the proposal before the Commission was one that took into account the direction from the Planning Commission as well as the technical changes necessary. He stated that this protect had been very difficult in regards to technical requirements for separation of antennas and correct operating heights. He stated he was available for questions from the Commission. Chairman Cartwright asked about landscaping to the west of the antenna. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 4 Mr Wolcott responded that Airtouch was very aware of landscaping requirements as it was required in the guidelines and was at the discretion of staff. Vice Chairman Lyon stated that the Seaview Villas Homeowners Association was very concerned about the movement of the antenna closer to their property by 25 feet. He asked Mr Wolcott why the antenna had to be moved from the original location. Mr Wolcott answered that the architect and the engineer agreed that it would be very difficult to extend the existing monopole as it is presently designed Because of the design of the foundation, the existing monopole could not simply be unbolted from the foundation The entire pole would need to be pulled out or cut the base of the pole at the lower half of the pole. If the entire pole is pulled out it could cause uplifting of the soil around the base of the pole which could disrupt the existing equipment within six feet of the monopole base Therefore, it was the suggestion of the architect and engineer to cut the pole off and have a second pole set in the same general area Vice Chairman Lyon asked if it was necessary to move the pole 25 feet. Mr Wolcott responded that on both sides of the existing pole there is Pac Bell Mobile Services and Sprint. That does not allow Airtouch to go between those two facilities because that is where the conduit and utility runs are. To the east of the monopole is the access around the California Water Service building. Therefore, he felt the only option was to move towards the west Commissioner Clark stated that he understood what Mr. Wolcott was saying, however there were many residents that were opposed to moving the monopole 25 feet to the west He asked Mr. Wolcott how seriously Airtouch had looked into replacing the existing monopole and keeping that pole in the same location Mr Wolcott explained that in his conversation with the architect and engineer that moving the pole was their recommendation. Commissioner Paris was concerned with the size of the structure. He asked Mr. Wolcott if the monopole structure that measured 28 inches in diameter at the base and tapered to 18 inches at the top included the panels Mr Wolcott responded that the dimensions stated were without the panels. Commissioner Paris asked what the measurement would be with the panels Mr Wolcott answered that the panels were in three sectors and each sector would add a maximum of one foot to the diameter of the pole. Chairman Cartwright asked how long of a disruption in service would occur for the Pac Bell and Sprint customers if the current monopole were removed and replaced rather than relocating the pole. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 5 0 0 Mr Wolcott responded that Airtouch would try to minimize the disruption in service, since Pac Bell and Sprint do not have a vested interest in the project, hopefully only a day or two at the most Commissioner Vannorsdall felt there was a better location on the property to move the monopole. Mr. Wolcott explained that to the east and the north of the existing pole are the traffic avenues around the California Water facilities. Tom Alley 6304 Sattes Drive stated that he visited the California Water Service site and looked at the existing antenna as well as the mock-up of where the new antenna is to be placed. He felt there was a reasonable engineering solution to put the new antenna at the existing antenna site He asked the Commission to deny the application and requested the new antenna be located in the area of the existing antenna at a height no greater than the existing antenna. Linda Navarro 12 Seaview Drive Rolling Hills Estates stated that she was the acting president of the Seaview Villas HOA. She questioned why the tower could not remain in the existing location. She felt that it would be more cost effective for Airtouch to move the antenna to the proposed location, but stated that the HOA was very much against moving the antenna closer to their homes. She stated the antenna would be an eyesore and could see no reason the antenna couldn't stay at the existing location She felt that there had to be an engineering solution to the problem and would like to see Airtouch work on such a solution Commissioner Clark asked Ms. Navarro if she had an opinion on moving the monopole to another location on the property, away from the Seaview Villas. Ms. Navarro answered that she had no problem with the monopole being moved to another location as long as it would not affect the Seaview Villas. However, it would undoubtedly affect someone else who would then be speaking before the Planning Commission in her place. Commissioner Paris asked Ms Navarro if the monopole were to stay at the present location, would she have a problem with the extended height and size of the antenna. Ms. Navarro responded that the location was the issue She did not want to see a tower in her backyard. She stated that the ideal solution to the problem would be to replace the existing tower in the same location and not increase the height. Cam Garcia 10 Seaview Drive Rolling Hills Estates felt that placing a tower 25 feet from the Seaview Villas would have a negative affect on their property values He was disappointed in California Water Service for commercializing their property. He questioned Airtouch's motives for not attempting to find a solution to replacing the existing monopole with a new one and the same location. He felt that there was an Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 6 engineering solution to the problem. He questioned if the proposal had undergone any type of environmental review, and if not he strongly recommended that it should He believed there were many other areas on the property, included the area of the existing tower, where this new tower could be placed. Chairman Cartwright asked Director/Secretary Rojas to respond to Mr. Garcia's statement regarding the environmental statement Director/Secretary Rojas answered that an Environmental Review had been done as part of the completeness review for the application when initially submitted, and staff had determined that pursuant to CEQA it was categorically exempt CEQA provides exemptions and staff felt this project was classified as a replacement or reconstruction of an existing structure where the new structure is located on the same site and serves the same purpose. Evan Wood 20 Seaview Drive Rolling Hills Estates stated he was not against progress and felt that additional cellular service was needed in the area. However, he found it objectionable to move the existing tower 25 feet closer to the Seaview Villas properties He pointed out to the Commission that in the nine years he has lived at his residence California Water Service has come to the Planning Commission and asked for the original tower, a twelve car garage built along the property line which blocks all of the wind coming onto his property, and the relocation of a propane tank to the edge of the property. He realized that cellular service was necessary, but putting a monopole 25 feet closer to the property line would create an eyesore for many of the residents Once again there would be an encroachment onto their views at their expense. If the tower were to remain at its present location the view impacts would be mitigated. He asked the Commission to consider the impacts of this proposal on the neighborhood Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Wood if he felt if the project were approved it would have an impact on property values in his neighborhood. Mr. Wood responded that it was a difficult question to answer but he felt it would have a negative impact on property values. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road pointed out a typographical error in the draft Resolution for the project Cam Garcia clarified that he was not in favor of modification of the existing tower He felt the existing tower, with the addition panels, would be very unacceptable to him What is now an eyesore would become completely unacceptable. Paul Wolcott (in rebuttal) stated that he was not an engineer and could only reiterate what the architect and engineer had said that because of the type of foundation on the existing tower, it would be very difficult to pull the tower out and build a new one in the same location. He did not feel that moving the pole 25 feet closer to the Seaview residents would significantly change the view of the pole from the residences. He Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 7 0 0 sympathized with residents, but felt that Airtouch was trying to balance the needs of the industry as well as trying to find an appropriate location for the equipment. Vice Chairman Lyon asked Mr Wolcott to clarify the size and shape of the panels He did not feel the plans adequately described the shape or size of the panels. Mr. Wolcott answered that the panels would be comparable to the existing Sprint antennas, which consist of a flat panel, four feet tall, one foot deep, one foot wide Vice Chairman Lyon asked how many panels would be on the new tower Mr. Wolcott answered there would be 6 panels from Airtouch, 6 from Sprint, and 3 from Pac Bell. Commissioner Alberio agreed with Vice Chairman Lyon that the plans before the Commission were, at best, schematic and very hard to follow. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Cartwright stated that fudging from the questions asked by the Commissioners there was a feeling that the Commission would like to have answerer to questions asked at the hearing. He pointed out that the engineer and architect had said it would be very difficult to replace a tower at the existing location He questioned if that meant it could not be done or did it mean the service would be disrupted for a long period He wanted to know why it could not be done and pointed out that Mr. Wolcott was not an expert and could not answer the question. Commissioner Slayden stated that he was not present at the meeting when this item was last heard. However in reading the minutes from that meeting there were no speakers present to object to the proposed location, which was the same location as presently proposed He wondered what had changed to prompt the objections at this meeting. Commissioner Paris clarified that the original dimensions proposed placed the tower at 77 feet high. However, at the meeting the applicant stated that there would be an additional 12 feet in height required on the antenna He felt that this additional height prompted the attention of the HOA. Commissioner Clark moved to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to prepare an analysis of moving the monopole or keeping the pole where it is. Included in this analysis would be documentation and justification of the location with the proper experts present at the public hearing, as well as clearer, more precise and detailed plans, seconded by Commissioner Paris. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 8 Commissioner Slayden commented that he had no trouble reading the plans before the Commission He understood that moving the pole from the existing location would present problems, but felt the proposal before the Commission was a good one. Commissioner Clark repeated his motion. The motion passed, (6-1) with Commissioner Slayden dissenting. Chairman Cartwright questioned staff as to when this item would be returning to the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas felt the information could be brought before the Commission at the January 25, 2000 meeting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:15 p.m the Commission took a short recess until 9:30 p.m at which time they reconvened and continued the public hearings. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 23- Revision 'JJJ': Roslyn Stewart/Stewart Trusts 2909 Vista Del Mar Associate Planner Khranian presented the staff report. He stated that the applicant was previously before the Commission under a previous CUP revision to allow modifications to the original structure footprint. The applicant now proposes to modify the structure to consist of 50 percent or more of the demolition of the existing exterior or interior walls, which would constitute a new structure by definition of the Development Code. The modified proposal was subject to a CUP revision as well as a neighborhood compatibility finding He explained that the applicant proposes demolition of a significant portion of the existing structure and replacement with a new structure that is slightly smaller than the existing structure The height of the new structure will also be less than the existing structure within the existing footprint. Because the structure is lower in footprint and size, the actual open space criteria is increased to 72 percent which is an improvement. Further, the proposed structure exceeds the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines minimum requirements for front yard, side yard, and rear setbacks. He explained that the neighborhood compatibility requirements could be met and recommended that the Commission approve the project. There was discussion between the Commissioners on the design of the home and neighborhood compatibility The Commission felt that the design was compatible with the individuality of the homes in the area. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 9 0 • Roslyn Stewart 2903 Vista del Mar stated that the house is in a location that has an unobstructed view and they wanted to design a home that could compliment the location. She stated that she was very pleased with the architect's design with the added features of being lower than the existing house, taking up less space than the existing structure, and is much more efficient, livable, and simpler. She concluded by stating she was available for questions Commissioner Slayden asked if she was going to live in this new house Ms Stewart stated that her son would be living in the house. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23 Revision `JJJ' and Grading Permit No. 2156 as presented by staff, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-46, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (7-0). 5. Variance No. 463: Richard Wong (applicant) David and Diane Long (owners), 30113 Cartier Drive Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He stated that the 280 square foot expansion to the existing attached two -car garage required a Variance and staff had found that all appropriate findings for the Variance could be made. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the Variance. Commissioner Slayden asked if they had contacted the Homeowners Association regarding this project Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that staff routinely sends out a notice of public hearing to the president of the appropriate homeowners association He did meet with the president of the HOA at the subject property. Chairman Cartwright asked if there had been any objections to the project. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that there had been no correspondences on this project. There being no speakers on the project, Chairman Cartwright did not open the public hearing Commissioner Alberio moved to approve Variance No. 463 as presented by staff thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-47, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 10 6. Site Plan Review No. 8731: Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Aranda 30462 Camino Provenir Chairman Cartwright stated that this property is located in the same general area in which he lived. However, it is not located within 300 feet of his home and in a different homeowners association and different street. Therefore, he did not feel there was any problem with voting on this item. Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report He explained that the proposal was for a 944 square foot second story addition By definition, a height variation is required for an addition when it exceeds the permitted height requirement for the zoning district, or when a second story is created However, since this proposed addition is within the existing roof line and will not expand the building envelope, staff believed this could be considered an interior improvement The two proposed dormers are over the 16 -foot height limit and are considered architectural features. Therefore, per the Development Code, the Planning Commission is required to review the project through a Site Plan Review. Staff conferred with the Building Official regarding the proposed dormers and it was noted that the dormers could be engineered to be constructed as proposed. Additionally, staff has assessed the dormers and determined that they do not create any substantial view impairment. One letter was submitted expressing concern regarding view impairment, however staff determined that the views in question were not protected views Therefore, staff recommended approval of the project Commissioner Slayden asked staff if there were any conditions attached regarding the very large trees on the site He wondered if there was any restriction on the height of the trees Associate Planner Mihranian replied that according to Proposition M, if the trees were creating a view impairment they could be no taller than 16 feet or the roof ridgeline However, since the trees do not impair a protected view there is no view impairment, and no need for trimming or removal Chairman Cartwright asked if there had been any correspondence regarding the project Associate Planner Mihranian answered that there had been one letter received and it was attached to the staff report. Commissioner Paris asked if there were any privacy issues. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that there was one window facing the neighboring property. That window is a bathroom window and staff has conditioned the approval that the window be translucent. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 11 . 0 9 Eugene Aranda 30462 Camino Porvenir stated that above the ceiling of his home he has a large attic space that he would like to convert to an exercise room and bathroom The area is approximately 1600 square feet and he would like to convert half of the area. The dormers would provide light to the area as well as the architectural features to the outside. He stated that the pine trees in the front of the house are well kept and trimmed, and will continue to be so Commissioner Paris asked when the trees had last been trimmed. Mr Aranda stated the trees had been recently trimmed, and therefore are fairly clean and trimmed. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris commented that the design presented was a very good way to reclaim useable space with minimal impact to the outside of the structure. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve Site Plan Review No. 8731 as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (7-0). NEW ITEMS 7. Clarification of Conditions of Approval for Height Variation No. 884: Sultan Ahamed 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive Assistant Planner Schonborn explained that on August 24, 1999 the Commission approved the construction of a new two-story residence. Condition of Approval No 10 did not allow for grading in conjunction with the Height Variation approval. However, during construction large rocks were encountered in the old compacted fill. As a result, the applicant's soils engineer determined that it was necessary to remove and recompact the soil. The approximately 1600 cubic yards of grading was determined to be remedial grading necessary to reestablish the stability and continuity of the area. The grading plan has been reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety Division as well as by the City Geotechnical Consultant. Therefore, an after the fact grading approval was issued by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement to approve the remedial grading Staff was bringing this back to the Planning Commission under the Development Code's interpretation procedure in order to request the Condition of Approval No 10 be modified to allow for the after the fact remedial grading Commissioner Slayden moved to accept staff recommendation to amend Condition of Approval No. 10 as presented in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 12 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2000 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there currently are no items scheduled for the meeting, however there are two projects that could end up as potential items for that agenda K91 i7d 1TAN,• Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road commented on and objected to the City Council minutes of November 16, 1999 regarding Abalone Cove She congratulated the Planning Department for opening to the public all day beginning in April and wondered why they didn't start sooner. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Chairman Cartwright discussed expense reimbursements and related tax issues Commissioner Paris stated that he had spoken with the City Manager who suggested not cashing the December check He would be checking with the City Attorney and would let the Commission members know as soon as possible. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Slayden moved adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Albeno. The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m. to the next regular meeting on January 11, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 13 9 • Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 14