Loading...
PC MINS 19840424MINUTES Planning Commission April 24, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Hesse Park Community Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard by Chairman Harvey Brown. PRESENT: BROWN, ORTOLANO, MCNULTY, VON HAGEN ABSENT:- WI KE NIAINW11.1"Mus iu, Minutes of April 10 & April 11, 1984 Commissioner McNulty moved to approve Resolution P.C. No. 84-7 the Consent Calendar, seconded by Resolution P.C. No. 84-8 Commissioner Von Hagen. Chairman Brown Resolution P.C. No. 84-9 abstained from approving the minutes of April 10, 1984 since he was absent but approved the minutes of April 11, 1984. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner McNulty moved to change the order of business to place Height Variation 342 - Appeal as first item on the Agenda. It was seconded and passed unanimously. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 342 - APPEAL Assistant Planner Dino Putrino presented Capt. McGee the staff report. He mentioned that Lot 1, Parcel Map 15264 letters of concern were received and a view analysis was conducted at each address from which a letter was received plus some additional locations. The view from 42 Avenida Corona appeared to be the most critical; however, staff determined there would be no significant view impairment. Staff's recommendation was to deny the appeal to Height Variation No. 342 which would uphold approval of the application. Issues discussed were: dimensions of the proposed house and the removal of the garage on the existing house located on the common property . Chairman Brown opened the informal hearing. Capt. McGee, 34 Avenida Corona, spoke in favor of the appeal and represented 10 other petitioners. Their concerns were as follows: (1) the proposed residence would destroy views by standing out "prominently"; although they recognized views would not be utterly destroyed, and (2) setting a precedent in the neighborhood. A vicinity map was distributed and discussed. Capt. McGee said the appeallants all live above, behind, or beside the proposed residence. He proposed there was an alternate way to build a sizeable house on that lot so as not to violate the Code in such a manner as not to impair anyone's view. He cited examples of those individuals who had built homes in the community with consideration of their neighbor's view. 0 91 Minutes 4/24/84 Page Two Mr. A. B. Nouhagen, 2 La Vista Verde, spoke in favor of the appeal. He was also concerned with view impairment and precedent setting. He also mentioned his concern about the CC&R's. Mrs. Bess Jones, 42 Avenida Corona, concurred with Mr. McGee and Mr. Noughagen's feelings. Not only was she concerned about view obstruction, but she felt the proposed residence was out of scale with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. John West, 48 Avenida Corona, deferred to his neighbors and concurred with the opinions already stated. He also stated that staff did not visit his property. LL 2 15rl,-4 gy Dan Melilo,.4-6"Avenida Corona, spoke against the appeal. He said he was planning to reside in the home and resented the "derogatory" remarks being said about it. He felt the trees on the lot blocked the views more than his proposed house. He said he was willing to remove the trees when the home is built and he felt that views would not be significantly impaired. He said the house would be built on the buildable pad. He felt there was a 32 foot difference between his lot and 42 Avenida Corona from grade to grade. There would be no further grading necessary other than footings excavation. Capt. McGee then presented photos for a For Sale sign on the property and disputed the difference between the lots and felt it was only a 22 to 25 foot difference in elevation. Discussion ensued relative to significant impact, promontory, precedent and cumulative impact. Dr. Brown advised that the Planning Commission does not enforce homeowner's CC&R's. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to deny the appeal to Height Variation ation No. 342 which would uphold approval of the application; seconded by Commissioner McNulty and passed. Roll Call: Yeses: Brown, McNulty, Von Hagen Noes: Ortolano VARIANCE NO. 97 Assistant Planner Dino Putrino presented ANTHONY & DOMENICA GEORGE the staff report. He advised a 6216 MONERO DRIVE correction to the findings listed in the staff report and Resolution. Finding number 2 should read: "...in that the irregular configuration of the house on the subject lot precludes development without setback encroachment." He said along "-'l"submitted. There with the Variance application, Height Variation No. 3 was also is no view impairment from the surrounding properties as indicated from a preliminary view analysis. Since the existing structure is situated in an irregular configuration on the subject property, where the corners of the structure project into the front, rear, and side yards, it is difficult to design a reasonable addition which functions efficiently to the needs of the applicant. The applicant would be converting the existing garage; adding a 2 car garage with indirect access. Staff did a field investigation and many homes on Monero have attached garages with direct and indirect access which have a minimum front setback of less than 20 feet. Staff noted that these homes 1� I Minutes April 24, 1984 Page Three were built prior to the City's existence. Staff recommended adopting Resolution No. P.C. 84-10 approving Variance No. 97 based on the required findings with the amended language. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing. Mr. Anthony George, applicant, stated reasons for the application, reiterating they have outgrown the house, and it is difficult to add on to the back of the house and they propose to add 1200 square feet of living space. They feel others in the neighborhood already enjoy the 10' setback. It was moved, seconded, and passed to close the public hearing. Commissioner McNulty moved to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 84-10 approving Variance No. 97 with the amended language; seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Chairman Brown advised that the issue is appealable to City Council within 15 days. VARIANCE NO, 99 The staff report was presented by Frank & Kathleen Agostino Associate Planner Steve Rubin. The 29010 Bayend Drive applicant's are requesting approval of variance to allow a proposed garage addition to encroach 6 feet into the 20 foot front setback. The 2 car garage would allow storage area and would have direct access to the street. Mr. Rubin stated that a field investigation showed that a majority of the houses along Bayend Drive and Jaybrook have less than a 20 foot front setback. He said the Code requirement is 20 feet. They request a 6' encroachment in light of the small lot size. Mr. Rubin said it is staff's opinion that in light of the improved off-street parking situation, and the irregular shape and small size of the subject property, combined with the small square footage of existing living area, the request is justifiable and recommended adoption of Resolution P.C. No. 84-11 approving Variance No. 99. The public hearing was opened by Dr. Brown.4(2 Mrs. Ortolano was concerned with the removal of concretepand asked about making this a condition of approval. 4 Mrs. Kathy Agostino, 2910 Bayend Drive agreed to the removal of the concrete. It was moved, seconded and passed to close the public hearing. 51,A� Mrs. Ortolano moved to approve Variance No. 99 and afo"pAt �Reso ution P.C. No. 84-11 with the added condition that the existing concreteAbe removed after the driveway is completed. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously. Chairman Brown advised of the appeal time. I Minutes utes April 24, 1984 Page Four VARIANCE NO, 100 The staff report was presented by GARDNER COMPANY Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. He said 5762 Ravenspur Drive the applicant is requesting to construct three waterfalls which would encroach into the required 15 foot street side setback and public right-of-way along Hawthorne. The visual displays were viewed and discussed. Mr. Putrino raised two concerns: (1) pedestrian safety and (2) attractive nuisance. Mr. Putrino said the concept had certain merits, however, there remains little or no space between the project and public access. Staff recommended to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-12 denying Variance No. 100 based on failure to make the required findings. Eifscussion-ensued relative to -the placement of the water and plexiglass sheeting. Public hearing was opened by Dr. Brown. Mr. Glen Dixon, 333 Palos Verdes Boulevard, stated his reason for the application was an attempt to beautify the frontage of the building and cutdown on the traffic noise. He stated a willingness to work with staff to come, up—to the proper speci fica t ions., -C� - -- - It was moved, seconded, and passed to close the public hearing. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-12 denying Variance No. 100; seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown advised that the issue was appealable to City Council within 15 days. VARIANCE NO. 101 The staff report was presented by Associate ROBIN WONDER Planner Steve Rubin. He said the 88 Headland Drive applicant is requesting to allow a wood deck in the rear yard to exceed 12 feet in height. He said a pool was constructed earlier and at that time there were no plans for the deck with that application. The proposed deck would have its footings in an area of less than 35% slope. Mr. Rubin stated a correction to the staff report that the proposed height of the deck is approximately 18 feet and not 15 feet. Some alternatives were discussed. Staff recommended adopting Resolution No. P.C. 84-13 denying Variance 101. Discussion ensued regarding why the pool was approved without a deck, whether a fence was required around the property and alternatives. The public hearing was opened by Dr. Brown. Mr. Robin Wonder, 88 Headland Drive, applicant stated that the pool was built in January 1984 and the maximum height of the deck includes the railing. He asked about the procedure for measurement. He said he was aware of the fence requirement. Mr. Wonder felt that exceptional and extraordinary circumstances did exist because of the sloping lot. He felt others have enjoyed such property rights. The deck would give family recreation. He felt if the deck was cantilevered and attached to the pool, it would place undue upward stress on the pool. Plus cantilevering wouldn't be the same style as the other decking already existing. 4 1 40 Minutes April 24, 1984 Page Five Mr. Wonder read a letter from his neighbor who stated no objections and was in favor of the variance. Mr. Richard Black, 13 Cayuse Lane was in favor of the variance. He agreed with the statement that the deck as proposed would be more aesthetically pleasing, and that the deck is needed for safety reasons and he verified that no fill dirt was left. He also mentioned that the 65% of the deck conforms to the Code. The public hearing was closed and discussion continued. Dr. Brown moved that staff return with a specific resolution approving Variance No. 101 with appropriate language. The motion was 7sqic-q��ed _ _4 passed unanimousl.y, Director Hightower asked the Commission for further direction for making finding #2. Dr. Brown advised that the Commission had not taken final action so, therefore, it is not yet appealable to City Council. VARIANCE NO. 102 Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni Robert E. Lyon presented the staff report. The request 6424 Via Colinita is to allow a wall to encroach into the entire twenty foot front setba6�—p-1—us-..' an additional two feet into the public right-of-way. His concerns were: (1) the placement of the wall within the front setback and in the public right-of-way and (2) the height of the wall exceeding forty two inches. Mr. Pedroni said staff could not justify allowing the wall at its present height. Mr. Pedroni gave a brief history of this application stating that the tract was 'finaled in 1924. These homes were located without leaving much room for anything to be built into the front yard. A pool was built in the back of the house within the last 6 months with a five foot fence or wall to surround it. Staff did not think this wall of this height was needed. Staff also thought there was a visibility problem. Discussion ensued, and it was determined that this issue came to the attention of Environmental Services as a Code Violation. Discussion continued about the use and regulations for garden walls. It was also stated that records have been investigated and no request for a permit can be located. Mrs. Ortolano asked Mr. Pedroni about the house at 6418 Via Colinita and requested more information about its block wall and building permits, etc. Mr. Tony Inferera, 1967 Upland, RPV, architect, presented a history and background as to the chain of events. He said the wall plans were submitted to The Palos Verdes Estates Homes Association and approved. He questioned the statement about visibility. Robert Lyon, 6424 Via Colinita, owner, stated his reasons for the variance. He also gave a brief history of events. He dealt mainly with the height and not encroachment and felt there was no visibility problem. He cited similar existing examples in the neighborhood. Mr. Lyon stated the reason for the wall to alleviate a drainage problem. He said he had earlier filled out an application for a Variance Minutes April 24, 1984 Page Six but that his contractor told him it was approved and it was not necessary. Dr. Brown asked for the name of the contractor. A question arose about lighting and wattage. Mr. Lyon replied that no lighting has been installed. Dr. Brown asked if the fence was brought into compliance with the Code would that still solve the drainage problem. Mr Lyon said he could not dispute that. It was discussed to continue the public hearing so that staff could provide the Planning Commission with a copy of the application submitted by Mr. Lyon and so that staff could provide information about building permits. Options were discussed, and it was decided there were three: (1) approve the request, (2) deny the request (3) modify it to comply with the Code. Dr. Brown moved to table the item requesting additional information from staff at the next Planning Commission meeting. It was seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously. REPORTS STAFF None COMMISSION Dr. Brown reported there will be a dedication for Pt. Vicente on May 5. The City Council and Commission/ Committees joint meeting will be held on May 1st from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m On May 29th, there will be another joint meeting with City Council at 7.30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mr. McNulty moved to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. to May 1st at 6.00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed. r