Loading...
PC MINS 19860114All M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Von Hagen at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: NONE LATE: HODGE, McNULTY Also present were acting Director of Environmental Services Ann Negen- dank, Associate Planner Alice Bergquist Angus, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Greg Fuz, and Assistant Planner Jack Roberts. REORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION Mr. Von Hagen nominated Mrs. Ortolano for the office of Vice Chairman and Mrs. Wike seconded the motion. Mrs. Ortolano requested the item be discussed later in the agenda. Mr. Von Hagen withdrew the nomina- tion. Mrs. Ortolano moved Item III, Reorganization of the Commission, be moved to the end of the agenda under IXB, Commission Reports. Mrs. Wike seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 3 WORKSHOP Associate Planner Alice Berg- quist Angus presented the Spe- cific Plan No. 3 staff report which noted the purpose of the workshop to be for staff to provide the Commission with information related to the Specific Plan area, to discuss concerns and issues, and to set a tentative schedule for adoption of the Plan. Staff recommended the Commission select a subcommittee to work on the Plan with a City Council subcommittee. Staff noted density to be con- sidered in terms of the number of a specific type of establishment in a certain radius of miles and suggested a point for consideration to be whether the Commission wishes the Plan to include regulations per- taining to this type of density. Staff noted six owners of commercially developed propoerty, seventy individual owners of Eastview Townhomes, and stated there is an "alley" between i the townhomes and Unocal which is privately owned. Staff discussed the extreme slope behind most of the properties and recommended the Commission discuss same in terms of whether the Plan should address allowing construction there. 603CP/MIN1.1 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Two Staff recommended the Commission discuss internal access, driveways onto Western, and the "alley". Staff recommended the Commission refer the items of circulation and parking to the Traffic Committee. Staff also recommended buffering between residential and commercial sites and no buffering between individual commercial sites. Staff suggested Specific Plan No. 3 carry the same architectural theme as Specific Plan No. 2, noted a CUP filed in June for redevelopment of the Mobil site, and recommended a Commission/Council subcommittee February work- shop with landowners, tenants, homeowner associations or area repre- sentatives, and Chamber of Commerce representatives. The Commission discussed the signage ordinance along Western and sug- gested that signage be considered in terms of Code compliance. The Commission discussed the Council moratorium as it applies to the CUP filed for the redevelopment of the Mobil site. The Commission discussed density and the type of uses. Density was discussed in terms of a specific type of establishment in a certain radius; the Commission also discussed in terms of height and overall size, and in terms of traffic production. The Commission indicated more information regarding convenience store traffic is needed. The Commission discussed safety problems related to alcohol sales. The Commission discussed the extreme slopes, and deemed the Develop- ment Code standards to be applicable. The Commission discussed retail store parking and noted pedestrian circulation should be considered. The Commission recommended staff look at the foot traffic from the parking area to retail establish- ments. The Commission stressed the importance of buffering specifically with regard to the Mobil station abutting residential property. The Commission discussed the landscape theme coordinating with the overall theme of the area, specific plan guidelines were noted to be an asset to developers, and looking at the Plan in terms of benefits as opposed to restrictions was discussed. The Commission noted its intentions to discuss a Specific Plan No. 3 subcommittee later in the meeting. Chairman Von Hagen declared the Specific Plan No. 3 Workshop closed at 7:40 P.M. 603CP/MIN1.2 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Three COMMUNICATIONS Staff Staff presented additional con- ditions pertaining to Resolu- tion P.C. No. 86-2. Commission None CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of 12/10/85 The Commission discussed iden- tifying each resident's concern in the minutes. The Commission requested a copy of staff's response to Solar Indus- tries as discussed on Page 1, Paragraph 5. Staff noted City Council received and filed the report discussing the pros and cons of such an ordinance. Mr. McNulty moved Consent Calendar Items A and B be accepted and Items C and D be moved to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously. Mr. Von Hagen was congratulated on his appointment as Chairman of the Commission. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit 58 Associate Planner Steve Rubin Major Amendment and Assistant Planner Jack Rob- Tumanjan & Tumanjan erts presented the staff report on this request to amend the approved landscape concept and to allow accessory type struc- tures to be placed on the indi- vidual lots with the recommendation that the Commission discuss both the landscape and accessory structure issues and direct staff to pre- pare a resolution for the next meeting. Staff noted applicant's request for continuation of this item. 603CP/MIN1.3 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Four Mr. Peter Delgado, 3500 Lomita Boulevard, #M100, Palos Verdes, of Tumanjan and Tumanjan, requested the item be continued to the first February meeting, stated his need for review time, and his opinion that there seems to be a lack of communication between the City and the Developer. The Commission questioned interested parties and determined opening the public hearing as the appropriate way to proceed. Assistant Planner Jack Roberts presented the staff report regarding landscaping. Staff noted the CUP was granted in 1980, the conceptual landscape plan was approved in 1982, the plants that were to have been drought tolerant as well as maintain a height that would not block views, have been planted in excessive numbers, and the developer never submitted a plan of working drawings for staff review. Staff recommended the application be denied and requested Commission support in requiring the landscape architect to work with the City in planting required plants and providing a maintenance agreement. Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the staff report regarding ac- cessory structures with the recommendation that small amounts of ac- cessory structures be allowed. Staff also recommended free standing structures not be allowed within private yard areas, the public hear- ing be continued, the Commission supply direction on the issues in or- der for staff to bring back a resolution on the item, requested the Commission to take testimony from the public, and reminded the public a final decision would not be made at this meeting. The Commission discussed the developer addressing the issue for the entire tract, the $492,000 landscape bond, the offending olive tree, staff's position that the developer did not follow the original 1982 plan, the ground cover of mostly grass rather than drought tolerant, lot line adjustments which have not been submitted, the effect of ap- plicant's request on lot line adjustments, and the subject development was noted as generally having a zero lot line on one side and a four foot setback on the other. The Commission voiced concern over spa noise, discussed special noise control for spa equipment, fence maximums of six feet stepping down to any abutting perimeter walls, the perimeter height control not apply- ing to the side fencing, homeowner privacy, shrubbery exceeding allowed fence height, twelve foot maximums of patio cover heights. Lap pools were stated as not included for consideration. Staff noted no fencing controls in the area, many fences in the devel- opment which are six feet all the way to the perimeter walls, dis- cussed whether the developer or owners are installing fences, stressed its recommendation that free standing structures in private yards not 603CP/MIN1.4 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Five be permitted (free standing structures were defined as those not having an attachment to the primary structures). Staff stated items not included in the approved application would be considered an inten- sification of land use and would be reviewed on an individual basis through revisions to the CUP, and at -grade spas can be built as close to the property line as can be engineered. Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing. Mr. Daniel Handelsman, 32646 Coastsite Drive, stated his concern over tree heights, requested the Commission direct the developer to conform to original plans, and voiced concern over enforcement of the plans once all the units are sold. Mr. Ajit Shah, 6418 Vista Pacifica, stated his appreciation of staff's assistance, his lack of knowledge upon purchase with regard to prob- lems, and his spa diameter to be approximately seven feet. Chairman Von Hagen closed the public hearing. Mr. McNulty moved to continue the public hearing to the next available date in February, seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. INFORMAL HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit No. 59 Associate Planner Steve Rubin Minor Amendment presented the staff report on Palos Verdes Properties this request to approve revised architectural treatment for Tract 37818 with the recommen- dation that the Commission ap- prove the request as proposed. Staff noted structural drawings for the proposed units have been sub- mitted, the developer is close to obtaining grading permits, and the developer is awaiting Los Angeles County Flood Control approval. The Commission discussed the proposed roof to be safer for fires and roof slopes should parallel the natural grade. Mr. Ade Colley, 144 North Orange Street, applicant's architect, noted wood exteriors have a tendency to be modified by homeowners. Mr. Franklin Weiss, 30711 Via La Cresta, President of La Cresta Home- owners Association, discussed the only plan changes to be the exterior treatment of the buildings. 603CP/MIN1.5 9 0 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Six Mr. McNulty moved to accept staff's Recommendation No. 1, approving applicant's request, seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously. Height Variation No. 426 Appeal - Robinson 2112 Crestwood since view obstruction is not for cumulative impact on views Assistant Planner Greg Fuz pre- sented the staff report on this request to overturn staff's denial of a second story addi- tion with the recommendation the Commission deny the appeal minimized and because of the potential from surrounding properties. Staff noted the view from Lot 227 to be reduced by one-third, view blockage to be considered from setbacks and within primary living areas, and the quantity and quality of a view to be important. Mr. Mike Robinson, 2112 Crestwood, applicant, stated a growing family to be the reason for the application, his desires for a utility room, the roof will be tile, noted the proposed view impairment to be 27%, mentioned the pitch of the roof to be kept as low as possible, and stated the entry tower had been shortened. V -e Commission discussed a 161 addition obstructing more of the view, second story addition precedent setting, considering each case on its own merit, and sympathized with the shortage of affordable family housing. Captain Thomas Gibson, 2161 West Fairhill Drive, stated his opposition to the application and his opinion that 53% of his view would be blocked. Staff noted 211811 to be the maximum height request and a 161 height would not significantly affect the 2% view plane from 2161 West Fair - hill Drive, any plan changes require resident notification, and recom- mended the Commission take testimony and approve staff's recommenda- tion instructing applicant with regard to a new Height Variation ap- plication. Ms. Carmen A. Encisco, 2147 Fairhill Drive, and Mrs. H.B. Hobbs, 2155 Fairhill Drive, stated opposition to the application and voiced con- cern over view impairment. T' -e Commission reminded concerned residents that a 161 addition is within Code. Staff noted no CC and Rs in the area and the processing fees for a Height Variance to be $150. 603CP/MIN1.6 5 10 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Seven The Commission discussed applicant's intent to implement revised plans, the existing structure of 12' in height, the revised request, and recommended Mr. Gibson's thorough review of each set of plans. Applicant stated fees to be of no concern and voiced concern over the time element involved in submitting a new Height Variance request. Staff discussed renoticing with regard to a possible reduction in po- tential view impairment. T`e Commission discussed renotification to not be necessary, stressed the importance of resident support at future meetings, and recommended night view analysis of lights. Mr. McNulty moved the item be continued to the next available date in order for applicant to submit proposed changes, staff review appli- cant's changes and , if a significant reduction exists, no further no- tice to be necessary. Seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimous- ly. I Height Variation No. 432 Associate Planner Steve Rubin Appeal - Glazer presented the staff report on 6568 Eddinghill Drive this request for approval of Height Variation No. 432 pre- viously denied by staff with the recommendation that the Commission deny the appeal. Staff noted the requested second story addition to cover two thirds of the existing residence, 231 feet to be the proposed height, views from the side dining room window and the living room window of 6549 Edding- hill Drive (Varwig) to be significantly impacted, all two story homes on Eddighill to be originally built as same, no past second story ap- plications on Eddinghill, second floor uses to generally be bedrooms, and applicant's house to be currently 16' high. Ms. Yvonne Glazer, 6568 Eddinghill Drive, applicant, stated the 6549 Eddinghill Drive view to currently not be over her home, noted a growing family as the reason for the request, stated she sent over 200 letter to area residents regarding the addition, and presented a copy of a City letter showing Mrs. Gillis' notification of the proposed ad- dition. Mrs. Jewel Varwig, 6549 Eddinghill Drive, stated opposition to the application, noted she received no letter from the Glazer's, she did not receive City notice regarding the January 14 meeting, the City pole has not been placed in front of the Glazer property to show the 603CP/MIN1.7 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Eight height of the addition, voiced concern over a possible 50% view im- pairment, and objected to the proposed decks around the second story structure and the large appearance of the proposed addition. Mrs. Vivien Boot, 6541 Eddinghill Drive, stated opposition to the ap- plication, noted she did not receive City notice for the January 14 meeting, she did not receive a letter from the Glazer's and the view down Eddinghill and from in front of her home would be significantly impaired. The Commission stressed the consideration of views to be from primary living areas (living room and dining room). Staff discussed notification for the January 14 meeting and sated the notice would have been for the original Height Variation request. The Commission voiced concern over notification problems and recom- mended, in the future, an effort be made to insure those significantly impacted be notified. Ms. Marcella Gillis, 6560 Eddinghill Drive, stated the price of her home to originally be 10% more for the view, she did not receive a letter from the Glazer's, did receive a City letter, the proposed ad- dition would directly affect her view to the West, and no pole has been installed showing the proposed addition height. The Commission discussed the 6549 Eddinghill view and voiced concern over staff not analyzing it from inside the house. Staff noted the 6549 Eddinghill view to be from the side window, any area outside the house not within the required setback area, and it was not possible to enter the Varwig residence. Mrs. Ortolano moved the Commission deny the appeal for Height Varia- tion 432 therbey upholding staff's denial of the application, second- ed by Mrs. Wike. Commission discussion continued over significant view impairment from primary living areas, the increase of average resident ages, the scar- city of affordable family housing, potential home buyers considering amily plans, the dining room window on the side of the Varwig resi- dence was discussed as an incorrect interpretation of the Code, and the two story homes existing in the neighborhood were noted. Staff stressed the original two story homes to be an invalid criteria for evaluation of the application. 603CP/MIN1.8 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Nine The original motion was defeated 3-2 with Mr. Hodge, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Von Hagen dissenting.. The Commission voiced concern over the allowance of height variations and sympathized with applicant regarding affordable family housing. Mr. McNulty moved to approve the appeal for Height Variation 432, sec- onded by Mr. Von Hagen and. passed by majority with Mrs. Ortolano and Mrs. Wike dissenting. Interested parties were advised of appeal rights. Grading No. 855 Assistant Planner Greg Fuz pre - Appeal - Vocka sented the staff report on this 28180 P.V. Drive East request to allow construction of a nine foot high replacement retaining wall next to a drive- way with the recommendation that applicant's request be ap- proved. Staff noted the request is for replacement of a "cripple" wall of the same height, the existing wall is stucco with wooden studs, the pro- posed wall will fillup crawl space under the driveway, the geology of the area will be reviewed by the Building and Safety Department and the City geologist, and no cut will be involved -- only fill for the existing air space. The Commission voiced concern over the wall retaining the slope on Palos Verdes Drive East and discussed the height of the wall as poss- ibly making the hill more unstable. Mrs. Vocka, 28180 Palos Verdes Drive East, applicant, requested the Commission approve the application. Mr. McNulty moved to approve Grading Application No. 855 approving the appeal of staff's denial to construct a nine foot retaining wall adja- cent to Palos Verdes Drive East, seconded by Mr. Hodge and passed unanimously. Resolution P.C. No. 86-2 Kerwin (Consent Calendar) 14 agenda. The public was advised item was delayed as the result of public testimony would be taken. 603CP/MIN1.9 T' a Commission stated finaliza- tion of Resolution P.C. No. 86-2 to be the purpose of in- cluding the item on the January appeals may be made to Council, the the Commissioner's request, and no Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Ten The Commission discussed only nine of the recommended sixteen condi- tions were included in the meeting packages, Condition No. 16 with re- gard to resident concerns over traffic, heavy construction equipment and operation hours, Condition No. 15 with regard to the developer submitting plans prior to construction, and the importance of dealing with specifics in regard to adequately informing applicant of City re- quirements. Also, the construction bond amount mentioned in staff's Exhibit "A" No. 9(c) was corrected to be $500,000 - $1,000,000. In addition, the Commission added the following sentence to Condition No. 16 of Resolution P.C. No. 86-2: "There shall be no construction activity on the project involving the movement of heavy construction equipment in the public right of way or the delivery of materials to the project before 8:00 A.M." Sign Permit No. 278 Assistant Planner Jack Roberts Brown - Misc. Hearing presented the staff report on this recommendation for approv- al to install a permanent, free standing sign and three wall signs with the recommendation that the Commission allow the free standing sign with the condition that, by doing so, the removal of the existing signage be required and the retailer window signs be allowed as long as they are not greater than 5% of the total window area. (T4 -is item was delayed upon appli- cant request.) Staff discussed the current request as identical to applicant's 1982 request, existing non -conforming use, incorporating the existing foot- ing, the selected location to be the only feasibile one for a free standing sign in terms of maintaining parking and access, recommended the sign not be illuminated, and noted that relocating the sign could further complicate parking problems at the site. The Commission discussed placing the existing footing behind the planter and noted the 5% window sign limitation to be directly from the sign code. Staff discussed the tree near the site, previous approval not affect- ing present approval, using an actual maximum limitation on wall signs as opposed to the 5% limitation, and noted 5% of the window area of each building to be approximately a six square foot sign allowance. Mr. W.J. Brown, 2860 Via De La Guerra, applicant, requested Commission approval and stated the tree near the site is not on his property. 603CP/MIN1.10 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Eleven The Commission discussed staff's recommendations to be in good judg- ment. Mrs. Ortolano moved to adopt staff's Recommendation No. 1 approving Sign Permit No. 278, seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously. Resolution P.C. No. 86-3 Girardi (Consent Calendar) stressed Conditions 1-7 and No. 78-31, continue to apply to The Commission voiced concern over the amendment noting ap- plicant should not interpret the amendment as superseding the original document and 9-138 inclusive, of Resolution P.C. the subject lot. Mr. Von Hagen moved the Consent Calendar be approved with changes, seconded by Mr. McNulty and,passed-unanimously. Letter from New Owners Associate Planner Steve Rubin Tract 35040 presented the staff report in CUP No. 51 regard to the new owners of Tract 35040. Staff noted the new owners, Monte Rosa Partnership, are proposing to maintain the existing grading/heights, the buildings be made into du- plexes and single units with an average sale price of $350,000, if the new owner wishes to change architectural design the request must go before the Commission, and discussed approving plans in three parts. The Commission voiced concern over developers obtaining Commission input/extensions in order to enhance the sale of the property, stated its desire for the developer to "invest" in the project, discussed attaching a performance bond to applications to motivate builders to complete a project as planned, an directed staff to investigate the idea. Staff stated some plans to presently be in plan check and it will take approximately one/two months for grading permit approval. Mr. Charles Walton, 320 Arden Avenue, Glendale, noted the grading per- mit has been applied for and the clubhouse plans have been submitted and applied for. Mr. Nick Lam, 828 South Brand Boulevard, applicant, stated his pur- chase of the property to be November 1985, construction will begin as 603CP/MIN1.11 Minutes January 14, 1986 Page Twelve soon as necessary permits are obtained, his desires to make the prices more appealing, his intentions to build a low density/greenbelt type of project, and stressed his intentions to be genuine. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE The audience inquired about the procedure for obtaining copies of min- utes. Staff stated the City will copy minutes at a cost to the requestor. REPORTS Staff Staff noted the City farewell party for Mrs. Hightower. Commission Mr. McNulty nominated Mrs. Or- tolano to serve as Vice Chair- man, seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously with Mrs. Ortolano abstaining. The Commission discussed the Specific Plan NO. 3 Subcommittee and Mr. McNulty moved that Mrs. Ortolano and Mr. Hodge serve as the Specific Plan No. 3 Subcommittee, with Mrs. Wike serving as alternate, was sec- onded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT 603CP/MIN1.12 Mr. Hodge moved the meeting be adjourned at 11:55 P.M. to Jan- uary 28, 1986, was seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimous- ly.