Loading...
07-18-17FT MINUTES OF AN ADJQURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING CQMMISSI�N JULY 18, 2017 PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Comtnissioners Cardena�,Seaburn and Cooley Vice-Chaixznan Kirkpatrick was absent and excused Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Ju1ia Stewart, Assistant Planner James Aichele,resident FIELD TRIP Chairman Chelf called the public hearing to order at 7:30 a.m. at 0 Poppy Trail. A. ZONING CASE NO. 922, (Request for a Sife Plan Review to construct a new 4,$59 square foot residence and 1,232 square foot garage, a 560 square foot swunming pool and spa, with additionai amenifi.es such as a gatehouse and outdoor covered kitchen; and Conditional Use Permit for 688 squaxe foot guest house. The applicant is also �equesting Variances to allow for paxtial construction in the front yard area, for a privacy wall �hat exceeds 5' in height and to exceed the previously approved disturbance of the lot. The subject property is located at 0 Poppy Trail (Lat 90-B1-RH) Roll�ng Hills, CA, (Serpa). T'he project has been determined to be categorically exempt {Class 3-.Section 15303) pursuan�to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA} Guidelines. A1so present for this field trip public hearing were: A1vin Serpa, property owner Tavisha Ales, Bolton Engineering George Sweeney, Ax�chitect Planning Directox� Schwartz reviewed the proposed development for new residence, garage and related structures and explained the request for variances to locate a portion of the pool and outdoor kitchen amenities in the front yard area of the lot (in front of the leading edge of the residence}; the �.7�' high privacy wall and exceedance o£ the disturbance. She explained fhat following a Iandslide in 2005, the property was remediated and stabilized and the project was reviewed pursuant to �he California Environmental Quality Act, whereby a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted in which mitigation measures were developed for certain environmental effects identified in the enviranmental documents. Those mitigation measuxes were 1 implemented during the remediation and stabilization of the property following the landslide. She stated that grading, which contributes to dis�u.rbance of the �ot, was necessary to stabilize fhe property and which exceeded the maximum pezmitted 40% disturbance for which a Variance snras granted by the City, and which was a part of the enviranmental review. She further stated that the current plans show distu.rbance gxeater than previous�y approved and that staff needs to reconcile the previously repo�ted disturbance with the currently obfained information regarding di.stttrbance, even though the development project currently proposed is exempt from CEQA requirements. An addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is necessary and staff is working on the addendum. In response to Chairman Chelf, Planning Director Schwartz stated that minima� grading is necessary for the residential building pad fo Ievel if off for the construction, as it is now at about 10% gradient. She then stated that the applicant proposes to grade the building pad for a future stable, but has no plans to built one at this time. She stated that it has been the City's policy to not to allow grading for building pads unless a structure is planned to be erected concurrently with the grading. She stated that the evening out af the building pad will result in a balanced cut and fill; however the future stable pad could require export of some dix-�, if allowed to be graded now. The Commissioners indica�ed that since the applicant would be required to come back to the Plarming Commission in the fuiure for app�roval of a stable, that this be brought up at that time, rather than grade for the stable pad naw. The applicant inquired and was informed that he can use the stable pad, which is relatively flat, for staging for the construction materials during development, as long as no grading takes place on said pad. A11 present walked around fihe house and the accessory structures and outdoor amenities and viewed the proposed development. In response to Commissioner Seaburn, Ms. Schwartz stated that there were no inquires or cominents from any of the neighbars on this praject. Chauman Chelf asked if any o£ the Co�unissioners have any concerns or questions and hearing none, asked if someone would like to make a motion for staff to bring a resolution of approval for the next Plax�ni.ng Commission meeting. Commissione� Seaburn made a motion for sta£f to prepare a Resolution of approval and ComxnissionEr Cardenas seconded it. There being no further dxscussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the P�annulg Commission at b:30 PM. 2 B. ZONiNG CASE NO. 924, Request for a Site Plan Review to canstruct approximately 920 square feet of residential additions, an a property with a re�tricted development condition. The subject property is 7 PorEuguese Send Road (Lot 41-RI� Rolling Hills, CA, (Martin). T`he project has been determined to be categorically exempt under C'�ass 1, Secfion 1�301{3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act{CEQA) Guidelines. Present for this public hearing were: Susan Sreitenstein,neighbor Don Lords, Owners' representative Richard Gastelum, Architect's representative Assistant Planne:r Stewart reviewed the proposed development and pointed out the p:roposed additior� and patios. She stated that the propased additions entai1917 square feet, which would normally fali under an admYnistrative approval. However, in the past as part of an approval for a substantial addition, this property received a condition that any future development on the property requires Planning Con�unission review. She stat�ed that a few days prior to the meetin� the architect provided a letter requesting the removal of the restricted development designation along with a diagram showing wha� was previously approved versus what was current�y proposed and what was built. Ms. Stewart painted out that the proposed addition is much sma�ler than the previously approved project. She stated that no grading is proposed, and that the project meets a11 of the permitted development standards and coverages. Ail present walked around the house and viewed the proposed development. In response to Chairman Chelf, Plaru�ing Director Schwartz stated that norxnaliy when there is a resi�ricted development condition on a property, i�£ the entitlements that were appraved a� the �m� �vere not irnplemented, #hen �taf,� would deem the restric�ive condition non-applicable. Ms. Schwartz stated, that in this case, staff did not have timely sv.£ficient information to make a determination that the condition of restricted developrnent would not apply. In response to Chauman Chelf, Ms. Breitenstein stated that she has no objections or issues with the proposed development. Chaixman Chelf asked if any of the Conunissioners have any concerns or questions and hearing none, asked if sorneone would like to make a motion for staff to bring a resolution of approval. Cornmi.ssioner Seaburn made a motion for staff to prepare a Resolution of approval and Commissioner Cooley seconded it. 3 There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:30 PM. C. Z�NING CASE NO. 926, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construcf a '779 square foot sfable, which includes a loft. The subject property is 6 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 2Q-RH) Rolling Hi11s, CA, (Dunlap). The p�oject has been deterrnined to be cafegorically exempt under Class 3, Section 1�303 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. Present for this public hearing was Mr. Dunlap, fafher of the applicant, Michael Dunlap. Assistant Planner Stewart reviewed the proposed development and pointed out the silhouette for the proposed stable with a Ioft and corral, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. She stated that no grading was needed for the project as �he building pad already exi.sts and that the pad was created during improvernen�s being made for a project that was approved in 1997,which included approval for a s�ble and corral. B�ief discussion ensued regarding grading out building pads without placing structures on them. In response to Chairman Chelf,Planning Director Schwartz stated that an item could be placed on the Planning Commission agenda to discuss this issue and Building Code process for grading and development. Chairman Chelf asked if any of the Commissioners have any concerns or questions and hearing none, asked if someone would like to make a rnotion for staff to bring a resolution of approval. Commissioner Cardenas made a motion for staff to prepare a Resolution of approval an��anlmissaane�Cc�Iey,ec��d�d it. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the P�anning Cammission at 6:30 PM. D. ZONING CASE NO. 90$. Request for a Site Plan Review for grading to repair a failed slope, a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of fhe lot and a Sfable Use Permit to a1low a structure constructed as a s�able in 7�980 to continue to be used for recreation uses in Zoning Case No. 908, located at 2950 � Palos Verdes Drive North, (Lot 1-D-1RH} (Rottex). The project has been defexmi.ned to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environrnental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines,Section 15303. Present for this public hearing were: Andy Weller, applicant's representative Sergio Lopez,J'r., Da1 Mo Chong and Associates 4 Planning Director Schwartz reviewed tkte applicant's request to remediate a slope failure and to construct a basement and pointed out the area of failure and the condxtion of the residence foundation that resulted from the slope failuxe. She stated that with the remediation of the slope the di.sturbance of the lot would be 44.5% and that a Variance is required. She also reviewed the required Sfable Us� Permit to allow a structure approved in 1980 far a stable use, which has been used as a recreation room, to continue to be used for recxeational purposes. She stated tha� pursuant to Section 17.�8.140(H) of the zoning ordinance, legally constructEd one-story s�ables not currently used as stables may be used for passive recreation activities provided that certain conditions are met. She stated that the applicants are aware of the cond'ztions and the structure must be in compliance at the same time as the remainder of the project is comp�eted. AlY present walked over to the stable/recreation room structure. Commissioner Cardenas noted that there is adequate area around the structure fo�r a corral. Planning Director Schwax�tz stated that due to the urgency of the slope failure and the desired time frame to commence grading (prior to the rai�y season), staff prepared a draft Resalution of approval of the projec�, for consideration by the Planning Commission at theix ever�ing meeting. �ayt'man Chelf asked if any of the Corninissioners have any concerns or questions and hearing none, asked if someone would like to make a motion to consider a resolution of approval at the evening Planning Commission meeting. All Commissioners concurred to consider the resolution at�he evening meeting. There being no furthEr discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:30 PM. Respe S ' e , � � Yo1an Schwartz, Plannin irector Da e Approved: F°, � �_: � � �' Bra helf,�C 'Y�xn Dafe 5