Loading...
PC MINS 20000711El L] CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Approved July 25, 2000 Yl-/ Chairman Lyon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Vannorsdall led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, and Chairman Lyon Absent Vice Chairman Clark was excused APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objections to the Agenda, Chairman Lyon approved the Agenda as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed to the Commission a copy of P.C. Resolution No. 2000-18 (Planning Commission Rules and Procedures) and an addendum to the staff report for Item No 4 of the Agenda Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the City Council had upheld the Planning Commission approval, thereby approving the Coastal Permit and Variance for the Abalone Cove Project. The City Council also denied the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission denial, of the antenna request on Oceanaire Drive. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of June 27, 2000 Commissioner Long requested that the discussion regarding his concern that speakers who speak during the audience comment section of the agenda not speak on items that may be pending applications for future Planning Commission meetings be added to the minutes Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioner Paulson and Chairman Lyon abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. 2. One year extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 19062: Mr. Robert Katherman (applicant) 18 Rockinghorse Road Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the one-year extension request, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation No. 892 and Grading Permit NO. 2130 Mr. John Koscy (applicant), 3151 Deluna Drive Associate Planner Louie briefly explained that the applicant was required to provide additional geological information to the City for review and approval. In order to allow enough time for the submittal and review of the report, staff was requesting an extension on the project Chairman Lyon felt there was no reason for the City Geologist to attend the Planning Commission meeting if he has reviewed and approved the addendum report. Commissioner Long moved to continue the item to the August 8, 2000 meeting as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6- 0). 4. Encroachment Permit No. 28: Mr. Edward Murphy (applicant), 6304 Via Ciega Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report She gave a brief background of the project and explained that the applicant was attempting to legalize five pilasters currently constructed in the public right-of-way She explained that staff was able to make all necessary findings for the Encroachment Permit and the Director of Public Works had determined that there was sufficient width to allow Fire Department vehicles to safely access the area, the pilasters do not alter or encroach into the paved lanes, and the pilasters do not directly impact the line of sight for motorists Ms Louie noted that a neighbor, Mr. Ferraro, had brought to the City's attention that his underground water lines runs between the pilaster and the edge of the right-of-way. Staff placed specific conditions on the project that if the line ruptures and damages the street then Mr. Murphy will, at his own expense, shall alter the pilasters to allow safe access to accomplish any repair work She further explained that Mr Murphy had questioned staff as to whether the legalization of the pilasters gave him exclusive rights over the area between the pilaster and the edge of the right-of-way. He questioned whether he would be required to legalize the pavers located adjacent to the pilasters, since Mr. Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2000 Page 2 Ferraro had installed the pavers in the right-of-way without obtaining permits As a result, staff contacted the City Attorney The City Attorney advised staff that. 1) the encroachment permit before the Planning Commission is only for the legalization of the pilasters, 2) approval of the Encroachment Permit does not give Mr. Murphy nor any residents exclusive rights over the area between the pilaster and the edge of the right- of-way, and, 3) since the pavers were not permitted to be placed in the right-of-way they must be removed unless Mr Murphy or Mr Ferraro obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department Lastly, Ms Louie noted that since the City Attorney determined that the Encroachment Permit was solely to allow the applicant to have a structure in the public right-of-way, staff believed that the Minor Exception Permit was not necessary and staff recommended approval of the Encroachment Permit subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Long moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Edward Murphy (applicant) 6304 Via Ciega stated that he agreed with the staff report and its recommendations. He discussed the neighborhood and how things were done at one time in ways that are not necessarily permitted today. He stated that he was willing to cooperate in any way possible and work with the Public Works Department to help with a solution to the water lines in the public right-of-way. Paul Bergland 6309 Via Ciega felt the five pilasters looked nice in the right-of-way. He stated there were only four houses on the street and did not feel the pilasters impacted the street in any way and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the request. Don Ferrara 6301 Via Ciega discussed the pilaster that was originally for the mailbox in front of Mr. Murphy's residence. He did not think the 24" x 24" mailbox was legal, as the information he received from the postmaster that stated mailboxes should be 18" x 24". He felt the mailboxes should be moved back to their original location. He felt the pilasters were the illegal taking of public property He stated that his water line runs under Mr. Murphy's lawn, approximately 4 to 5 feet from the pilasters. He distributed pictures that showed surveyor marks and his car parked next to one of the pilasters. He explained how this showed that the pilasters were encroaching approximately 13 feet into the public right-of-way Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Ferrara how the existing pilasters affected his property. Mr. Ferrara answered that the pilasters ruined the entire ambiance of the street Chairman Lyon asked Mr Ferrara what he would like to see happen. Mr Ferrara answered that he would like to see the pilasters come out, as they are too large and he felt they were put in without much thought. He also felt that they made the street look too narrow. Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Long asked Mr. Ferrara if he had read the staff report and proposed Resolution. He asked if any of the findings in it were wrong. Mr. Ferrara responded that he had read the staff report and proposed Resolution and felt the findings were generally accurate. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Ferrara if he was aware that the Murphy's were allowed to put their mailbox in the public right-of-way Mr. Ferrara responded that he was aware of that, however the existing mailbox was too large. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the objection was to the additional four pilasters or all five Mr Ferrara answered that he would rather see the mailbox back in it's original spot. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr Ferrara if the applicant were to take out the additional four pilasters and reduce the mailbox to 18" x 24", if that would be acceptable. Mr Ferrara felt that would be acceptable. Chairman Lyon asked staff about mailbox standard for the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. He referred to a handout that indicated the maximum size shall be 24" x 24" He asked if that were correct. Associate Planner Louie responded that the City standard was 24" x 24" for a mailbox Mr. Ferrara stated that he had approached Mr. Murphy and volunteered to help him cut the height of the mailbox down two to three feet so that it didn't look quite so large on the street However, Mr Murphy declined the offer. Mr Murphy stated that many neighbors had complimented him on the appearance of the pilasters He felt that the Planning Commission should pay attention to the facts and criteria as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Long moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mueller stated that the pilasters appeared quite large from the street and felt the size was a cause of concern for him He also felt these large pilasters were very close to the street. Commissioner Long pointed out that there was no objection from any of the speakers regarding the findings presented by staff, which suggested to him that the Planning Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2000 Page 4 Commission should adopt the proposed Resolution to allow the encroachment He especially felt this way given that the street in question has only four houses on it and has very little traffic and is connected to a street that has very little traffic on it Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Commissioner Long's comments. He stated that if he had any objections, it was that the pilasters were too massive, aesthetically He added that if the pilasters had not already been built and the application was before the Planning Commission, he would most likely suggest they be smaller. Commission Cartwright agreed with the comments of Commissioners Long and Vannorsdall and added that he was further convinced by the letter from the Director of Public Works that was included in the staff report stating that the width of the street was sufficient and the pilasters would not pose a safety issue. He further felt that the additional four pilasters enhanced the street as well as the property, as one pilaster alone would look akward. Commissioner Paulson and Chairman Lyon agreed with the comments of Commissioner Cartwright and supported the staff recommendation Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-20 thereby approving Encroachment Permit No. 28, as amended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Mueller dissenting. 5. Height Variation No. 909 and Site Plan Review No. 8870: Mr. and Mrs. Dominic Pilato (applicant), 28600 Mt. Hood Court Assistant Planner Smith presented the staff report. He explained that the review for view impairment centered on the abutting property to the north and that the only response to the second story addition was received from Mr and Mrs. Zbojniewicz at 1242 Mt Rainier Road. They were concerned over their loss of their current view towards the hills in the Miraleste area. He explained that the Zbojniewicz's have a view of the Vincent Thomas View, San Pedro Harbor, and the Miraleste Hills area. The Zbojniewica's felt that views should be determined from three areas the kitchen, outside the covered patio, and outside in the garden area Staff determined that the viewing area was to be taken from the residence in the kitchen seated at the kitchen table, as determined by the City's Height Variation Guidelines. Mr. Smith pointed out that only views above sixteen feet in height could be considered in the analysis, and staff had determined that any view impairments took place below this sixteen -foot level. He briefly discussed neighborhood compatibility and noted that there is already a mix of one and two story residences in the neighborhood. He concluded that staff had determined that all nine findings for the height variation could be made and was recommending approval of the project Commissioner Long asked staff how they determined where the sixteen -foot level was located Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2000 Page 5 Assistant Planner Smith explained that when a silhouette is erected it is required that an orange stripe be painted at the sixteen -foot level. Chairman Lyon questioned staff concerning page 5 of the Resolution and the language regarding the proposed windows He felt the language should read the windows shall be raised from the finished floor to at least 56" in height Assistant Planner Smith acknowledged the change Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Dominic Pilato (applicant) 28600 Mt. Hood Court stated that the reason for the addition was that his family is growing and he does not want to leave his neighborhood Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Pilato if he had read the staff report and agreed with the recommendations. Mr. Pilato replied that he was in agreement with the staff report Henry Zboiniewicz 1242 Mt Rainier Road did not think it was necessary to add substantially to a home because of a growing family. He felt that it was possible and practical to have children double up in bedrooms, as he had done with his children. He strongly objected to any addition being made in an area where he has had, for twenty- five years, been able to look out towards Miraleste He pointed out that there were three viewing areas at his home the kitchen, the patio and the garden. He objected to the viewing area being taken only from the kitchen and felt that all three viewing areas should be considered He stated that this addition will significant impair a view he has had for 25 years. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Zbojniewicz if agreed with the staff report that the view impairment was under the 16 -foot level of the addition. Mr. Zbojniewicz was not sure if the entire view impairment was below 16 feet, he only knew that he would be loosing his entire view of the Miraleste Hills. Chairman Lyon and the Commissioners explained to Mr. Zbojniewicz that home owners are allowed to build up to 16 feet in height by right even if it blocks a neighbor's view, and while they are sympathetic to his concerns, the Planning Commission is bound by the Development Code. Commissioner Paulson moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mueller asked staff to clarify where the picture which staff had earlier distributed was taken from Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2000 Page 6 Assistant Planner Smith responded that it was taken from a seated position at the head of the kitchen table. Commissioner Long asked staff if the Development Code allowed for best and most important view to ever be taken from the outside. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the best and most important view could be taken from the outside but that was usually done when there is no view from the inside of the residence Commissioner Paulson stated that he appreciated the concerns of Mr Zbojniewicz, however as stated earlier the Planning Commission could not consider a view that was taken from under 16 feet in height, and he supported the staffs recommendations Commissioner Cartwright agreed with Commissioner Paulson's comments He also noted that he did not observe any privacy issues and the design of the addition was consistent and compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the Commission should consider that the addition may cover more of the garage than the 60% allowed by the Development Code He felt that the addition was not boxy in appearance and he did not have an objection to the project, but felt it was something the Commission should address. Commissioners Long and Mueller, as well as Chairman Lyon agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners. Commissioner Paulson moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-21, thereby approving Height Variation No,. 909 and Site plan Review No. 8870 as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed the City Council meeting regarding the Abalone Cove Development, the need for larger street signs in the City, and the City tree on Via Colinita and Via Ciega. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Vannorsdall discussed the memos he distributed to the Planning Commission. He explained that one memo dealt with the need for better street maps to be distributed to the Commissioners. He suggested several sources of map information available on the computer and suggested staff may want to look into the options available Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2000 Page 7 The Commission agreed and asked staff to report back to the Commission with their findings Commissioner Vannorsdall also discussed the procedure used by the View Restoration Commission regarding Commissioner site visits He agreed with their procedure in that if a Commissioner has not visited the site he should not participate in the hearing. He felt this was a topic for discussion at a future meeting. The Commissioners briefly discussed the issue and agreed it should be put on a future agenda as a topic of discussion. Commissioner Long requested a discussion to possibly amend the Planning Commission Guidelines to match the View Restoration Guidelines regarding view areas be placed on a future agenda. The Commission agreed. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to July 25, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2000 Page 8