Loading...
PC MINS 19851022� MINUTE3 -~/ Planning Commission October 22, 1985 The meeting was called to Order at 7:35 PM by. Chairman McNulty at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: MC NULTY, H8DGE, ORTOLANO° VON HAGEN, W1KE ABSENT: NONE Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, and Assistant Planner Greg Fuz. COMMUNICATIONS NEW BUSINESS mm Code Amendment No. 22 Assistant Planner Greg Fur presented the Staff report for the request to amend Section I7.34'060/B\ Of ' the Development Code to allow application for minor additions to residences partiall within the Coastal Setback Zone. The staff recommendation was for the Commission to discuss and determine what direction be taken after considering the issues raised, the changes proposed, and any testimony offered. The Commission questioned staff regarding the total number of residences affected by the Coastal Setback Zone, how they are affected, wha-t the effect is of the Code as presently written, and what its original intent was. Chairman McNulty opened the,public-hearinq. Thomas OsterstnCk, 40 3RaoOYe Drive, applicant, voiced his concern over the language in the proposed Code Amendment No. 22. Mr' Von Hagen moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. Hodge and passed unanimnusly. C000lSslOO concerns included the doubt raised as to the validity Of the Coastal Setback line if the boundary is changed. Discussion continued regarding staff approvals for additions to structurespartially/totally within the Z0O8 and the lack of necessity for special permits /Other than building) and any minor addition within the Zone. Chairman McNulty moved to approve the application for Code Amendment NO, 22 in concept with Condition No. l of staff's recommendations to Change the terminology to contain the words "or partially" following the word "totally" and to recommend to City Council that the requirements for the variance inside the 25 foot setback remain because it entails potentially larger development than the very restricted 250 sq' foot minor additions; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. 0- 0 Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 2 Variance No. 125 Assistant Planner Greg Fuz presented Haase the staff report for the request to 6108 Palos Verdes Drive, South -allow the expansion of a non -conforming commercial building and use. The staff recommendation was to adopt Resolution PC No. 85-A denying Variance No. 125 and Coastal Permit No. 19. W —Z7 The Commission questioned staff regarding whether applicant's 1982 plans showed an enclosed porch of any kind. Commission concerns included the ramifications involved in applicant's previous violation of coastal restrictions, whether the Commission can put the condition of time on the use of the property, and the fact that development of the building could set precedent in allowing non -conforming uses or buildings to have unlimited use as long as they don't change. Chairman McNulty opened the public hearing. Robert C. Haase, Jr., 20 Seacove Drive, applicant addressed the concerns listed in the staff report. He stated that his intentions have always been to give the building a residential character and, in his opinion, there has not been unnecessary expansion of a non -conforming use. He also stated that he was never told that the porch enclosure could not be approved, only that a variance would be required. Mr. Haase also commented on his monetary investment in the property. Dr. Jack B. Wall of Seacove Drive, an interested party, states that it would be a bad example for the Commission to allow the applicant to not comply with Code, particularly since such an expansion was not approved for a previous interested buyer. Mrs. Ortolano moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Discussion continued regarding the density and intensity of the building and the City's lack of control over rental properties. Director Hightower pointed out that the applicant was told in 1982 that he could not use the porch for anything but a porch; and, applicant indicated at that time he was making aesthetic changes only. Mr. Von Hagen moved to approve Variance No. 125 and Coastal Permit No. 19 with the condition that, within three (3) years of this date, the property come into full compliance. That is, elimination of the glass around the porch and paved parking spaces be positioned as required pursuant to the original approval. Parking to meet current code. The motion died for lack of a second. There was additional discussion regarding conditions which could be explored should non -conforming use be allowed. Minutes October 22, 1485 Page 3 Mrs. OrtVlanV moved to continue the public hearing and request the City Attorney to research whether the Commission has the power to condition the approval of Variance 125 and Coastal Permit No. 19 with a time restriction for the non- conforming use of the propertv. Also, the request is made to continue the hearing so that the City staff can bring hack information on the interrelationship between the application and the Trails Plan; seconded by Mr. Hodge and defeated 2-3 with Mr' McNulty, Mr, Von Hagen and Mrs. Wfke casting dissenting votes. Mr. McNulty moved to deny the application for Variance 125 and Coastal Permit No. 19; seconded by Mrs' Wike and passed on a 3-2 roll call vote with Mrs' Ortolano and Mr. Hodge dissenting. Chairman McNulty advised the applicant Of his appeal rights' Variance No. I30 Associate Planner Steve Rubin gave the Collins Property Inc. staff report on this request to allow a 29019 S. Western Avenue Canvas awning to exceed the allowed roof projection into the front setback by two (2) feet. The staff recommendation was to adopt Resolution PC No. 85-29��� approving Variance No. 130 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached thereto. The Commission questioned staff regarding the specification for the awning. Chairman McNulty opened the public hearing. Kimber Clark, I5133 Greenleaf Street, Sherman Oaks, applicant, requested clarification regarding a specific plan being considered for the development of Harbor Heights and surrounding areas. Ms. Clark also said the awning would be blue with a white stripe. ConmfosfuM concerns included the awning's cO0pdtabi7itv with surrounding properties. The CO00is5l0n informed applicant of the future specific plan which would be considered for this area and its possible affect on applicant's proposed canvas awning. Mrs- Wike moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr' Hodge and passed unanimously. 191 M% Hodge moved to adopt Resolution PC NO. 85-9 approving Variance No. I30 subject to Exhibit A, condition NOS. l° 2, and 3, with the addition of No. 4 stating, "There will be no logos, signage or w0rXiOg on the awning"; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. a INFORMAL HEARINGS Grading Application No. 835 - Appeal Assistant Planner Greg FuZ gave the Horowitz staff report on this request to allow 3282 Via Campesina construction of a 387 square foot split- level servant quarters addition on a 50% slope. Staff recommended denial of the applicant's request because: there was a second dwelling unit, and City policy limits C0nStrVCt1OV On extreme slopes to Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 4 primary living areas (as opposed to accessory structures) on existing recorded lots. Staff also recommended that the Commission decide whether the application should be continued pending review of the applicant's recent plan changes. Staff clarified the applicant's proposed changes. The Commission discussed the fact that the structure was built in 1968 under County jurisdiction. Alternative building sites were also discussed. Jack Horowitz, 2389 Kenilworth Avenue, Los Angeles, applicant, stated that the original intent was maid quarters for his parents and, because of approval difficulties, the plans were changed. He noted that the alternative building site would inhibit views from the major portion of the home. Commission concerns included the time necessary to review the new plans and the unavailability of a hearing date before January 1986. The Commission was also concerned with the ease with which the structure could be converted to a second dwelling with the City unable to monitor the use of same. The Commission clarified it was not the size of the dwelling but the design that was of concern. Discussion continued with regard to special consideration for a primary residence on a 35% slope lot and with regard to the fact that staff considerations are no different for accessory use additions or home additions. Applicant Horowitz asked the Commission to act on his original appeal. Mrs. Wike moved to deny the appeal for Grading Application No. 835 because there is a non -slope alternative and because of the potential of a second unit; seconded by Mr. Hodge and passed unanimously. Chairman McNulty advised the applicant of his appeal rights. Grading Application No. 843 Associate Planner Steve Rubin gave the Miscellaneous Hearing staff report on the request to construct Kennedy, 6400 Corsini Place a spa, water slide and exterior stairway on a 56% slope. The staff recommendation was to deny Grading Application No. 843 since further development on the slope would be excessive and inappropriate. Staff considered the spa, water slide and exterior stairway extraneous accessory structures on the slope. N Staff discussed alternatives for placement of the spa such as on the patio or in the pool area. In addition, staff mentioned that the pool should be excluded from the issues at hand. Stephanie Kennedy, 6400 Corsini Place, applicant, stated that Stan Smith of R. S. Smith & Associates had assisted in the design of the spa, water slide and exterior stairway and that it was structured to meet family needs. � Minutes October 22= 1985 Page 5 Commission concerns included the number of alternative Sites available for the spa. It was mentioned there is less excavation with a railroad tie stairway which is considered at -grade stairway not requiring approval. Also of concern was the mandatory fi foot fence around the pool/spa are�a^ mm4 fhe prm\� co")a kne- � �r»vqo /n por-Hpvs:,. Mrs. WYke moved to deny Grading Application No. 843: seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed on a 3-2 vote with Mrs. OrtOlanO and Mr. McNulty dissenting. ChAirman-McNulty advised the applicant of her appeal rights. The Commission was reminded by Director Hightower that, effective December 6, 1985* the only applications accepted for construction on a 35% slope would be decks and solar panels. - FF Associate Planner Steve Rubin reported On the need for d November workshop time to discuss intent and legal limits as to what the Planning Commission can require regarding Code Amendment No. 21, Chairman McNulty suggested the Peninsula Horsemen's Association be notified Of the meeting. Associate Planner Steve Rubin reported on the mailing of notice to continue the GV]dSD [OVe hearing from November 12, 1985 because the geology report has not been COMMISSION Mrs. OrtUlanU reported VO the need for discussion at the Joint Meeting With Council of /l\ the Trails Plan and the way the Commission is to implement it; (2) the Klondike Canyon Abatement District obligation and how the costs are going to be allocated; and, (3) Code Amendment No. 21 with regard to what the City Council is trying to advise. ADJOURNMENT 'lhe meeting was adjourned at 11:25 PM to 7:30 PM October 28, 1985 at Dodson Junior High School.