Loading...
PC MINS 20000613APPROVED 6/27/00 0 b -1 - CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Lyon called the meeting to order at 7:02 P M. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Paulson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Cartwright, Mueller, Paulson, Long, and Chairman Lyon Absent- Commissioner Vannorsdall and Vice Chairman Clark were excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planner Louie, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objections to the Agenda, Chairman Lyon approved the Agenda as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council had: 1) adopted the Annual General Plan Consistency Report that the Planning Commission had forwarded to the City Council; 2) Authorized the use of Shoreline Park for habitat mitigation for Ocean Trails; 3) Began the public hearing on the appeal by Mr. Abrams and continued the hearing to July 5, 2000; and, 4) Initiated a zone change to amend the location of the coastal setback line on a property which the Planning Commission will soon hear. Commissioner Cartwright reported on the article in the Los Angeles Times regarding the City's view restoration process and asked staff for an update on the Golden Cove Shopping Center development. Director/Secretary Rojas reported that the plans for the market renovation had been submitted to Building and Safety plan check but there had been no forward movement on the renovations to the rest of the shopping center CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of May 23, 2000 2. Resolution for Height Variation No. 827 -Revision `A' and Grading Permit No. 1887 -Revision `A': Mohamad Chahine (applicant) and Forrest Ebbs (landowner), 7455 Alida Place. The Planning Commission approved the Consent Calendar, as presented, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining since he was absent from the May 23, 2000 meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 23 — Revision "W", Amendment No. 1: Ronald Hale (applicant) and Younan Safar (landowner), 32566 Seacliff Drive Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained the project and noted that it met the setback and height requirements of both the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines and the City's Development Code. He stated that since the proposal will not alter the existing conditions on the property it does not result in any negative impacts to the area and staff recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Mueller stated that during his site visit the applicant had stated he would like to move the gazebo towards the corner of the property. Commissioner Paulson moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Ronald Hale 1869 Palacio Drive, San Pedro stated that he was the engineer and designer who prepared the plans that were submitted to the Planning Department. He stated that the owner wished to move the gazebo back to the location it was originally located, which was approximately 10 feet east of the site noted on the plans. This would give the owner a better view of the ocean from the pool area. Chairman Lyon asked if the owner was requesting the change or if the Planning Commission was to consider the project as presented. Mr. Hale responded that the process would require a Variance and there would be a delay in the process, and since the owner desired to use the pool area this summer, he felt if would be best to proceed with the application as currently presented. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Paulson moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had received any input from the neighbors regarding this proposal. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that there had been no correspondence, written or oral, from the neighbors Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23, Revision "W", Amendment No. 1, as presented, via Minute Order, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (5-0). 4. Height Variation No. 898, Grading Permit No. 2150, Minor Exception Permit No. 557 and Coastal Permit No. 160: Douglas Leach (applicant) and Max Ganezer (landowner), 6 Marguerite Drive. Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained the project and the reasons for the different applications. He stated that all nine findings could be made for the approval of the height variation. Staff had concluded that from Palos Verdes Drive West, from both northbound and southbound directions, the proposed structure would not significantly impair views He explained that in terms of view impairment from other properties, staff had concluded that there would be no significant view impairment. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he explained that staff had concluded that the proposed structure fell within the range of structure sizes prevalent in the immediate neighborhood. He also explained that the proposed residence would be consistent with the architectural style of the neighboring property to the south. Further, he explained that staff did not feel there would be any unreasonable infringement of privacy to the occupants of abutting residences. He stated that staff recommended conditional approval of the proposal Commissioner Paulson asked staff if the geology had been approved by the City Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that geologic concerns had been addressed in a report, and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist. Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had received any comments from neighboring residences, other than the one included in the staff report. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that staff had received no other correspondence, either written or by telephone. Commissioner Paulson moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 3 Doug Leach 119 W. Torrance Blvd. #24, Redondo Beach stated he was the architect for the project. He thanked the staff for the time and hard work that they had put into this project. He explained that the house was oriented to avoid looking directly onto the property to the west, which would infringe on the privacy of the existing structure as well as the fact that the adjacent vacant property would most likely be developed soon He, explained that all required setbacks are exceeded by a significant amount. Additionally, the proposed house is tucked in behind trees on the corner and behind the existing wall that forms the entrance to Lunada Pointe. He stated that he and the applicant had reviewed the Resolution and the Conditions of Approval and agree with each item Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road asked staff to explain what a "non -appealable portion of the City's coastal zone" was. Assistant Planner Schonborn explained that the Coastal Zone was considered as the portion of the City seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South He stated that within that area the local coastal plan and Coastal Commission has designated areas that are appealable to the California Coastal Commission and areas that are non -appealable to the Coastal Commission. He explained that a parcel that is between the first street that parallels the coastline to the actual coastline is largely located within an appealable area. In this situation there are streets that are closer to the ocean, therefore property inland of Marguerite Drive is considered a non -appealable area. He explained that this only means the Coastal Commission cannot hear an appeal, but it can be appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Long moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cartwright stated that he spent a considerable amount of time reviewing this project and was very pleased with the design and felt this home would be an asset to the City. He felt this proposal was a reasonable use for the property, could see no environmental concerns, it was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and could see no significant view impairment. Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve Height Variation No. 898, Grading Permit No. 2150, Minor Exception Permit No. 557, and Coastal Permit No. 160, as presented, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2000-16, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (5-0). 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 182 — Revision 'C': Mr. William Myers (applicant), 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report. She explained the history of the requirement for the chaining off of the parking lot and Mr. Myers request to delete this condition, as he felt it created an unsafe situation. She also noted that Mr Myers has not chained off the parking lot for the last 3 1/2 years. She stated that staff recommended deleting the condition as loitering has not been a problem and the chain Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 4 0 0 may have created an unsafe situation. Ms. Louie also noted that as a result of code enforcement inspections on all service stations, staff noted a number of items that were not permitted on the site under the prior approvals. She stated that Mr. Myers would be addressing these items tonight at the Planning Commission meeting She noted that according to the Development Code the Planning Commission could not take action on the applicant's request until the property owner removes or legalizes the recently identified violations. She concluded by stating that if the applicant addresses the issues tonight, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date certain to allow staff time to consider the amended request. Commissioner Long asked staff if they were saying that the Planning Commission was required to leave a dangerous condition in place, and not consider the applicant's request to remove the dangerous condition, because of other unrelated violations that exist on the property. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staff recognizes there could be a potentially dangerous situation on the property, as there was one confirmed incident involving the chain which happened on the property many years ago. Under the current Development Code, the Planning Commission cannot take action on an application if there are known violations on the property. Mr. Rojas stated that if the Commission was inclined on taking action on the chain request tonight, they could, provided that they condition the applicant to either apply for application revisions to address the other issues or remove the other violations within two weeks. Commissioner Long felt that the Planning Commission should have the ability, if there is a dangerous condition or public safety issue involved, to permit the condition to be changed regardless of other conditions on the property. Commissioner Paulson was concerned that if the Commission were to take action and deny the request to remove the chain because of outstanding violations on the property, then staff would go out to the property and require Mr Myers to put the chain back up Associate Planner Louie noted that the chain has not been up for 3 %2 years and staff would not make the applicant put it back up Chairman Lyon asked what the motivation was for staff to inspect the service stations in the city. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that at the car wash appeal hearing before the City Council there was a lot of testimony regarding commercial businesses surrounded by residential properties and that the City needs to ensure that these businesses are run in such a manner that minimizes impacts. As a result of the testimonies and a discussion with the City Manager, it was determined that the best way to address these concerns was to go out and verify whether the service station businesses were in compliance with the code and all of their conditions of approval Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Long moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Bill Myers 28103 Hawthorne Blvd explained the history behind the requirement to chain the parking area behind the service station He also discussed two incidents that occurred since the lot was chained which he felt he was held responsible for because the lot had been chained He stated that he took the chain down approximately 3 Y2 years ago and has not put it up since, with no complaints from the surrounding residents He felt chaining his back lot was an unfair requirement. He then discussed the violations on his property He agreed to take down the Mobil flags in front of the station and noted that he has already taken down the umbrellas that were in violation He felt that the signs in question have been there for a very long time and he was under the impression that they were grandfathered in and therefore conform He then noted Section Six of his Conditional Use Permit stating that the convenience store could not operate if the gas station or automotive repair were not in business and noted that he would like to remove the condition He stated that it was his understanding that his item would most likely be continued and asked that staff review his new requests. Commissioner Mueller asked if there were any services in the back parking area for customers Mr Myers stated that there was a parking area and tire air available Commissioner Paulson asked Mr Myers if he felt he was in compliance with his CUP in regards to his signs with the exception of the lottery sign and the ATM Mr Myers agreed and added that there was the issue of the newspapers he sells outside the front door of the convenience store He requested to be allowed to continue the sale of the papers at that location Commissioner Cartwright felt it would be appropriate to continue this item and direct Mr Myers not to put up the chain until the Commission has heard the entire request. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed her satisfaction with the service station and felt they were performing a service to the City She urged the Planning Commission to work with Mr Myers Commissioner Long moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Director/Secretary Rojas explained again the code section which prohibits the approval of a request if code violations are present on the property Commissioner Long requested that staff read aloud the exact Code section (17 86 050) Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 6 LI 11 Associate Planner Louie read aloud the Development Code section (17.86.050) After hearing the language from the Development Code Section, Commissioner Long had an alternate proposal He believed that the chain was a hazard to motorists and cyclists and should not have been added as a condition of approval He proposed not to grant the applicant's request to remove Condition No. 36, but rather amend the Condition to specify that he not be allowed to put up the chain This proposal would then make the conditions of the Development Code void since the Commission would not be granting the request to remove the condition, but rather amending the existing condition. Commissioner Cartwright recommended continuing the item to allow staff to work with Mr. Myers to address the code violations and additional requests and direct Mr. Myers to keep the chain down until the item has been heard Commissioner Paulson asked staff to read the section of the Development Code Section 17.86 050 again and stated that he did not feel there was an application before the Commission for the development or improvement of a site, as specified in the Development Code Therefore, he felt this code section did not apply to this request. Commissioner Lyon suggested the Commission consider the fairest approach to the situation in regards to the applicant. He felt the easiest and least costly approach for the applicant was to continue the item so that all the requests and amendments could be considered at once. The Commission had a discussion on what would be the best approach to this situation. Commissioner Long moved to deny the application and to instead amend Condition No. 36 of Resolution 95-41 to read that the rear parking lot area shall not be chained, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The motion failed, (2-3) with Commissioners Cartwright, Paulson, and Chairman Lyon dissenting. Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue the item to allow staff and the applicant time to address all the code violations and during this time the chain shall not be in place at the property, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (3-2) with Commissioners Mueller and Long dissenting. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested Mr. Myers go through the letter sent to him item by item and state which items he agrees to remove and which items he feels should remain He stated that staff would then amend the request accordingly and re -notice. Commissioner Paulson requested staff get an interpretation from the City Attorney regarding this particular application to determine whether this amendment triggers the definition of improvement or development as stated in the Development Code Section 17.86.050. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 7 • 0 Commissioner Long added that he would like some type of interpretation from the City Attorney on what types of powers the Planning Commission has when there is a matter of public safety involved. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.45 p.m the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:55 p m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT.) 6. Variance No. 416 — Revision `A' and Coastal Permit No. 159 — Revision `A': Miles Pitzkat (applicant) and Gene & Terry Rolle landowners), 38 Seacove Drive Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant was requesting to enclose an additional 147 square feet of their residence with glass, which will not affect views from the bluff top or beach area below. He reviewed the structure sizes of residences in the neighborhood that were built prior to incorporation, as this one was, and based on this analysis, staff determined that the proposed revision resulted in an overall structure size that is less than the estimated average maximum structure size. Since there was a negligible increase in overall structure size and no adverse geotechnical or view impacts, staff recommended approval of the revision. Commissioner Mueller asked staff about the structure size analysis that was performed and wondered why some homes on the street were not included He stated that one third of the homes on the street exceed the applicant's square footage and two thirds of the homes are smaller. Senior Planner Fox stated that staff did an analysis that compared this home with other homes that were subject to the same maximum structure size formula He explained that all homes identified were built prior to incorporation and In the old code there were different maximum structure size limitations for homes that were built prior to incorporation versus those built after incorporation. Commissioner Mueller noted that the staff report states that the addition would be mostly glass and would not adversely affect the views along the bluff or up from the beach and ocean below. He asked staff if they were suggesting that because the addition was glass it did not impair the view. Senior Planner Fox replied that staff was suggesting that since it was not an opaque structure that there would be some visibility through that corner of the house Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Mueller questioned the condition stating that the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement will have the authority to approve minor modifications to the plans in the future He questioned the reasons for that condition Senior Planner Fox answered that it was a standard condition added to almost all conditions of approval so that minor modifications to a project would not have to come back to the Planning Commission Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if this addition were not mostly glass, would their recommendation for approval be different. Senior Planner Fox answered that he thought the staff recommendation would be for approval either way Commissioner Cartwright asked if there was any view impairment from the adjacent properties Senior Planner Fox stated there was not. Commissioner Cartwright moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Miles Pritzkat 23727 Hawthorne Boulevard (architect) explained that the reason for this revision was simply a design adjustment and stated that he was in concurrence with staff recommendations Gene Rolle 3612 Almera Street, San Pedro (owner) stated they changed the original design slightly to straighten out a wall, and the geotechnical analysis has shown that they can achieve a 1 5 factor of safety at that point. Commissioner Long moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mueller agreed that the modification seems to be an appropriate use of materials and would enhance the property His concern was that this house was beginning to encroach onto the coastal setback area and he would like to see some limits on this, especially if in the future there was a proposal to add onto the back of the house That was why the wording regarding the Director being able to approve minor modifications concerned him Commissioner Cartwright agreed with Commissioner Mueller's concerns, however in this situation the application was for a structure completely under the existing eaves. He felt this modification was sensible and would add to the enjoyment of the property Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 9 i Commissioner Paulson moved to approve Variance No. 461 — Revision `A' and Coastal Permit No. 159 — Revision `A' as presented, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2000-17, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS 7 Planning Commission Rules and Procedures There was a brief discussion on whether to continue the item to a meeting where all Planning Commissioners would be in attendance, however it was decided to hear the item at this meeting since there would be absent Commissioners at the next meeting also Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report explaining the current procedures for dealing with late correspondence and speaker times and some of the alternatives presented in the staff report. He read a written comment from Lois Larue stating that she was opposed to the idea of not permitting dedication of speaker time to another speaker Commissioner Long asked if it was possible to receive the staff reports two to three weeks in advance of the meeting Chairman Lyon stated that the current rules and procedures have evolved over the years out of common sense and he would be reluctant to endorse a major change to an existing rule unless there is a compelling reason to do so There was a discussion among the Commissioners on the time frame for receiving staff reports for the next meeting as well as late correspondence Director/Secretary Rojas stated that logistically it would be very difficult for staff to distribute staff reports two weeks before the meeting as there are City Council and other Committee staff reports that must be prepared in addition to the Planning Commission's agenda The Commissioners generally felt it would be helpful to get the staff reports as soon as possible so they could perform their site visits Director/Secretary Rojas reaffirmed the commitment to have the staff reports delivered on the Thursday before the meeting The Commission agreed that assurance that staff reports would be delivered on Thursday evening would suffice The Commission then had a discussion on time limits for speakers and allocating time to other speakers It was pointed out that in the Rules and Procedures the Chairman has the discretion of limiting or adding time to speaker comments, but that some members of the public tend to abuse this Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 10 Chairman Lyon suggested changing Item 9 of the Rules and Procedures, which states that applicants and appellants are limited to 5 -minute time limits with a 3 -minute rebuttal and all others are limited to 5 minutes. He felt this should be changed so that speakers, other than applicants and appellants, are limited to a three-minute presentation. Language should also be added to the speaker slips and handouts stating that the time allocated is at the discretion of the Chairman These changes would bring the procedures into conformance with the procedure currently being practiced at the meetings. The Commission unanimously agreed. Chairman Lyon suggested incorporating at the end of the first sentence after the word appellant in paragraph 9, add "and no more than three minutes to all other speakers". The Commission unanimously agreed Commissioner Paulson moved to leave the policy on late correspondence as it currently is being handled, and amend the Procedures as noted by Chairman Lyon, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. The motion was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Long dissenting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Cartwright moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to June 27, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2000 Page 11