Loading...
PC MINS 20000926• CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 Approved Oglaber 10, 2000 US The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:03 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Mueller led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Mueller, Long, Paulson, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Lyon. Absent: Commissioner Vannorsdall APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objection, Chairman Lyon approved the agenda as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas stated that at the last City Council meeting the City Council approved the zone change and related applications for the new single family residence on Seacove Drive, as recommended by the Planning Commission He stated that the City Council also approved the tract amendment requested by Panorama Estates Homeowners Association. Director/Secretary Rous distributed one item of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 5, after the Commission agreed to allow it to be distributed Vice Chairman Clark reported that the Neighborhood Compatibility Ad -Hoc Committee had met with City staff and briefly explained that the committee had been looking at how the existing neighborhood compatibility review process could be clarified and that the committee was on schedule to bring possible recommendations to the full Commission by the end of the year CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of August 22, 2000 Commissioner Cartwright asked that some minor wording be changed on page 2 of the minutes Chairman Lyon noted that page 9 of the minutes did not reflect the full statement of Mr. Haase and asked staff to listen to the tape of the meeting. He also requested that staff listen to the tape and clarify his comments appearing on page 11 of the minutes Chairman Lyon stated that page 13 of the minutes did not accurately represent his comments and asked that the minutes be revised to reflect his actual statements. Vice Chairman Clark did not feel his statement on page 13 of the minutes was complete and asked staff to listen to the tape to clarify his statement. Commissioner Long requested that the revised minutes be brought back to the October 10 meeting for approval since many of the revisions involved staff listening to the tape He felt the Commission should see the minutes before approving the modifications After a brief discussion Chairman Lyon directed that the revised minutes be brought back to the October 10, 2000 meeting for approval. 2. Minutes of September 12, 2000 Commissioner Long noted a typographical error on page 4 of the minutes. There being no objection, the minutes were approved as amended. 3. Time Extension for Variance No. 460: The Villas at Rancho Palos Verdes (formerly known as The Porto Verde Apartments) 6600 Beachview Drive Commissioner Paulson noted that the applicant requested a time extension for the Variance as well as a request for the Planning Commission to reconsider Condition No. 21. He asked staff if their recommendation was to extend the Variance as requested but not reconsider Condition No. 21. Associate Planner Schonborn responded that staff was currently consulting with the Director of Public Works on the best way to amend the requested condition Therefore, the Planning Commission is to only considering the Variance time extension at this time. There being no objection, the Commission approved the time extension request for Variance No. 460. 4. Site Plan Review No. 8978: Mark Granger (applicant) 4809 Falcon Rock PI. Assistant Planner Smith presented the staff report. He explained that the two proposed dormer windows had a maximum height of 19 feet, which would match the existing Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 2 ridgeline of the home. He stated that staff had determined that the two required Site Plan Review findings could be made and recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve Site Plan Review No. 8948, as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 5. Variance No. 471, Coastal Permit No. 165 and Grading Permit No. 2192: Mark and Ellen Beal, 114 Spindrift Drive. Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report He explained the reason for the three applications and summarized the findings that were made for the approval of each He noted that conceptual geotechnical approval had been received from the city geologist. He stated that the proposed project was subject to the finding of neighborhood compatibility as the proposed addition exceeds 25 percent of the original square footage of the structure. He explained that staff had compared the property to 10 residences in the immediate vicinity. He noted that although the proposed residence would be substantially larger than many other homes in the area, staff believed the scale of the proposed project would be in keeping with the surrounding residences since much of the addition would not be visible from the street and the proposed residence would maintain a single story profile from Spindrift Drive. He noted that there had been inquiries about the project at the Planning Department public counter and there was the one letter of late correspondence distributed earlier at the meeting. The letter requested the construction of a silhouette so the neighbors could have a better sense of the potential view impacts of the project. Mr. Fox explained that the project was not a height variation and per the Municipal Code did not require a silhouette for their project Further, the height of the addition proposed was consistent with the height limit permitted by right for a down-slope lot. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions presented Commissioner Paulson stated that the letter received asserted that the roof area would be higher than the present roof. He asked staff if the new roof area would indeed be higher Senior Planner Fox answered that the proposed roof line is approximately 6 inches higher than the highest point of the existing roof. It would also extend closer to the street. However, the entire roofline is less than 16 feet in height. Commissioner Long questioned the grading finding regarding view impairment. He asked if that finding were required regardless if the structure being proposed were more than 16 feet in height or less than 16 feet in height. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that since grading was required, this finding must be made However, he explained that a property owner has a right to build up to 16 feet in Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 3 0 0 height Nonetheless, if there is grading associated with a project the Planning Commission can direct the applicant to modify the design if the grading causes view impacts to surrounding properties. In response to a question from Commissioner Long, Senior Planner Fox stated that staff had not completed a view analysis for this project since the planning approval did not exceed 16 feet in height. Commissioner Long felt that it was important to make the finding for the grading application regarding view Impairment based upon a clear understanding of the view involved and regardless of the overall height of the structure. Therefore, he felt that the silhouette be erected to judge if the determination of no view impairment had merit. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that a view under the 16 -foot height limit is an unprotected view However, because of specific grading findings, consideration must be given as to whether the grading Itself has an effect on the view In this instance, staff determined that the grading did not have any effect on views. Commissioner Long questioned where the Development Code stated that only views above the 16 -foot level were considered protected views. Further he questioned how he could make finding 2 on page 9 of the staff report, if a view analysis from the adjoining property had not been performed Director/Secretary Rojas replied there was no code section that specifically stated that views below the 16 -foot level were not protected. However, the code does say that only structures that exceed the 16 -foot level have to go through a discretionary process for purposes of construction, and that such structures may be denied if the portion over 16 - feet significantly impairs a view. Commissioner Mueller asked staff what was meant by the "permitted" column in the table on page 3 of the staff report. Senior Planner Fox replied that this referred to the maximum height that was allowed by right on a down-slope lot. Commissioner Cartwright moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Keith Palmer 2601 Airport Drive, Torrance, stated that he was the architect for the project He complimented staff on the thoroughness of their staff report and recommendations. He felt that the requirement of a silhouette would present a hardship on the applicants in terms of the lengthy process they have already been through and the added delay the silhouette would cause Mr Palmer noted that the grading proposed was entirely outside of the structure. The grading was for the construction of two terraces which were for garden improvements. He felt that a finding could be made that the grading is not making an impact on the building structure or related construction Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 4 since the house could be built without the terrace extensions. Therefore, he requested the flagging of the property not be required. Commissioner Paulson asked Mr. Palmer if there was any grading involved in the footprint of the house Mr. Palmer stated there was no grading involved in the footprint of the house All of the grading proposed was outside of the house's footprint. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Palmer why the proposed roofline was 6 inches higher than the existing roofline. Mr. Palmer responded that it was 6 Inches higher because the patio area at the front of the house was going to be enclosed and the area needed to span over the house was slightly larger. He explained that the current roof was a longitudinal ridge that spanned the entire length of the house and the proposed roof had a hip type profile so that it was lower on the sides with a peak portion in the middle. He noted that the height of the lower floor was reduced from a 9 foot ceiling to an 8 -foot ceiling Vice Chairman Clark asked if the revised plans had been shown to the neighbors Mr Palmer stated that he had made a presentation to the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association, which was in agreement with the project, but that he had not directly contacted the neighbors Randee Wood 111 Spindrift Drive asked the Commission if they only considered views from the property directly behind the applicant's property She stated that her property was behind and to the side of the applicant's property and she was concerned about the proposed deck extension and what it would do to her view of Inspiration Point. She was not opposed to the project, but felt a silhouette would be helpful for the neighbors to determine view Impairment. Chairman Lyon stated that view issues are typically considered from many adjacent properties. He asked Ms. Wood if the current residence obstructed her view of Inspiration Point Ms. Wood answered that the residence currently blocks one small side portion of Inspiration Point, but she did not want any further blockage. Mr. Palmer distributed a drawing showing where Ms. Wood's residence is located He noted that the house is stepped back to preserve the view corridor. Mr. Palmer showed Ms Wood the drawing and explained to her the proposed addition. Ms Wood felt it was still hard to visualize and felt that a portion of her view of Inspiration Point would still be blocked. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 5 Vice Chairman Clark asked Ms. Wood if her house was positioned so that her primary view was of the ocean and Catalina Island Ms. Wood said she did primarily have an ocean and Catalina Island view There being no further speakers, Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing Commissioner Paulson felt that Commissioner Long had some valid concerns, however for this specific project he felt he could make the findings to support the staff's recommendation since the grading did not have any impact on the height or location of the actual residence. Commissioner Cartwright agreed that the findings could be made for all three applications and was not inclined to support the erection of a silhouette Commissioner Mueller felt the proposed addition created a home that was significantly larger than the others in the neighborhood and was concerned that approving it might set a precedent for the neighborhood. He was also concerned about the size of the project as viewed from the beach below. Commissioner Long felt he could not make the finding regarding views for the grading application without erection of a silhouette at the site. He also did not think the enlargement to this house was compatible with the neighborhood Therefore, he was inclined to vote to deny the project on the basis that he did have enough information to make the finding on view impairment and he could not make the finding on neighborhood compatibility Vice Chairman Clark felt this was a unique neighborhood in that it was originally built for vacation homes and summer beach cottages. However, it has evolved into year round, permanent residences He felt this was significant in the context of neighborhood compatibility and what the residents were faced with in terms of aging, sub -standard homes. In that context, he felt this proposed improvement was beneficial to the community and reasonable and appropriate for the applicant to seek. He thought Commissioner Long's analysis was interesting and felt the Commission might look into it in more detail at a later date. Chairman Lyon felt that, in terms of neighborhood compatibility, it was difficult for any addition to be compatible because of the small size of the homes He noted that none of the neighbors had objected to the proposal on the basis of the house being too large. He felt the size of the house was not visible from the street level He felt that an owner has a right to build up to 16 feet in height as long as he does not artificially alter the base point of the 16 -foot measurement by grading. That was not being done in this case, and he felt that the past practice and intent of the Commission was consistent with approval of the project Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 6 E 11 Vice Chairman Clark moved to adopt P.C. Resolution NO. 2000-33, thereby conditionally approving Variance No. 471, Coastal Permit No. 165 and Grading Permit No. 2192, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Commissioner Long suggested that erecting a silhouette would ease neighbors' concerns about view impairment. He asked the Commission to consider continuing the item to a date certain and requiring a silhouette. Chairman Lyon and Vice Chairman Clark felt that the code was clear on the issue of height and that the minor change in height did not warrant a silhouette. Motion approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Long and Mueller dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:40 p.m. the Commission took a short recess until 8:50 p.m at which time they reconvened. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road asked staff to explain the 16'/ 20 ' height measurement. Director/Secretary Rojas explained the measurement was used on pad lots that may have a slight variation in the pad level. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont.) 6. Six -Month Review of Conditional Use Permit No. 208: Shiraz Govani, 27774 Hawthorne Blvd. (Highridge Car Wash) The Commission waived the reading of the staff report Commissioner Paulson expressed concern over the continuance of this item. He felt staff had visited the site, notified the owner of the items not in compliance approximately two months ago, one extension has been granted, and now another extension was being requested. He asked if the owner was having trouble achieving compliance. He noted that his concern was not just with this particular car wash but more of a process issue. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the purpose of the six-month review was to ensure conditions of approval were being met. However, the owner was considering amendments to some of these conditions. Therefore, staff allowed additional time to submit information that would be relevant to amending the conditions. This has not yet been done, therefore continuance to October 10 was recommended by staff Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Long asked staff why the non-compliance was not a code enforcement issue Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the six-month review would deal specifically with the City's approval involving the sale of non -automotive items from the cashier area, and the conditions related to that approval, such as parking and hours of operation. However, he explained that other non-compliance issues, such as signage and lighting, would be dealt with separately through code enforcement. Commissioner Cartwright asked staff why the Planning Commission was not hearing the six-month review at this meeting Director/Secretary Rojas responded that once the applicant did not meet the deadline a new notice for the six-month review only was necessary and the noticing requirements did not allow the hearing to take place until the next meeting. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated that Mr. Govani had contributed to a City Council member's campaign and asked the Planning Commission to keep that in mind since Mr Govani could appeal their decision to the City Council. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing Commissioner Paulson moved to continue the public hearing to the October 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (6-0). 7. Conditional Use Permit NO. 132 — Revision 'C': Sheryl Austin, Discovery World Infant Center and Preschool (applicant) 6245 Via Canada Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He explained that the original Conditional Use Permit and Revision expired in 1997 and was brought to staffs attention approximately 1 year ago, at which time staff notified the Palos Verdes Unified School District and the tenants that applications needed to be renewed He explained that the proposal involves continuing operation of the private day care center and preschool. The only exception was to change the weekday drop off time from 7.30 a rn to 7 00 a m. He explained that staff was not aware of any complaints regarding the operation and no comments were received in response to the public notification for tonight's hearings He explained that staff believed this minor change would have negligible, if any, impact on the surrounding properties and recommended approval of the application. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Mueller expressed support of the staff report and urged approval of the requested application. Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-34, thereby conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 132 — Revision `C', as presented, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (6-0). NEW BUSINESS 8. Conditional Use Permit No. 23 — Revision `MMM': Arkun Golder, representing property owner Barry Greenstein, 3303 Palo Vista Drive. Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained the proposal and noted that the addition on the pool level area and the expansion of the middle level balcony would not modify or increase the lot coverage, that setbacks would remain the same, that the height of the structure would not change, and that upper level open space is consistent with what the Seacliff Hills development guidelines require Therefore, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit Revision 'MMM' Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing Arun Gholkar 3343 Palo Vista Drive stated that the addition proposed was consistent with existing properties and the footprint was not increasing. He requested the Planning Commission approve the project. Vice Chairman Clark stated that he had noticed that for some time the windows on the residence have been boarded He asked what the overall schedule was for the completion of the remodel Mr. Gholkar understood that the windows had been boarded for quite awhile and anticipated the interior remodel to be done in the next two months. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cartwright felt the proposed changes were minor but he was concerned with the amount of time it was taking to put the glass into the windows. Commissioner Long asked staff if there was an ability to condition the approval to set a time limit on the amount of time allowed to complete the construction Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Uniform Building Code now allows 18 months from the day the building permit is issued for construction to be completed. Vice Chairman Clark moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23 — Revision `MMM' as presented, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 9 9. Planning Commission Site Visits Commissioner Long stated that this was an agenda item originally suggested by Commissioner Vannorsdall. He stated that he agreed with the suggestion and that the proposal was to have a procedure by which prior to the public hearings, the Commissioners would be polled as to whether or not they had visited the site. The Commissioners would then state that they had visited the site, they had not visited the site or that they had made reasonable efforts to visit the site but had not been able to and not recuse themselves. He stated that site visits were valuable, necessary, and appropriate. The Commission discussed the issue of site visits and generally agreed that there had not been a problem in the past with Commissioners making site visits They agreed that part of the job of Planning Commissioner was to make a good faith effort to visit the sites and did not feel a need to make the visits a requirement. Commissioner Cartwright moved to receive the report and table the issue, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Long dissenting. Vice Chairman Clark requested an agenda item regarding potential topics for a future joint meeting with the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 to October 10, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 10