Loading...
PC MINS 19870526M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 1987 6 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairperson Ortolano at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: CONNOLLY, MC NULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: NONE Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Laurie Brigham, and Assistant Planner Carolynn Welker. COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Ortolano indicated that communications would be noted during discussion of related items. Staff noted a modification to Page 2, Paragraph 1 of the May 26 staff report pertaining to Variance No. 157, "...County would not have made the conversion legal." CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of April 28, 1987 Commissioner Von Hagen modified Page 3, Paragraph 6, to read, "...by Commissioner Wike and passed unanimously." Chairperson Ortolano modified Page 5, Paragraph 1, to read, "...with Pacific Bell and made the distinction that the application was on the behalf of a different telephone company." Commissioner McNulty moved approval of the April 28, 1987 minutes as amended; seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Resolution P.C. No. 87-18 Commissioner McNulty moved approval Approving Variance No. 156 of Resolution P.C. No. 87-18 Jerome Chatow - 6510 Lebec as amended; seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and passed unanimously. 0 Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS • Variance No. 157 Assistant Planner Carolynn Wilker Southworth & Williford presented the staff report. _LEL61 How QwQr_thQ Staff clarified the standard. single -car garage-_si�:e of 9 feet by 20 feet witha-min-imum 8--- foot vertical clearance. Staff pointed out that the existing garage could be reconverted to an enclosed vehicle parking -1 area an( siIi4le—story or second story addition could be --.a- constructed 7 ( sub_ 317ect --t6 a Height ,Xa-o gain living - area. Commissioner Wike noted that the existing setbacks would meet the Code requirements with the addition of a single -car garage. Commissioner Von Hagen pointed out that many of the residents in the area have added carports to compensate for the small garages. With regard to Chairperson Ortolano's inquiry, staff related that the item was called to the City's attention through a Code enforcement complaint. Chairperson Ortolano recommended staff investigate the residence next door to the applicant's which also does not contain a garage. She questioned whether staff considered the option of a carport. Staff responded that the alternative of a carport was not considered. Addressing Commissioner Connolly's inquiry, staff discussed that a vehicle storage area arage) must be enclosed and a carport area would not qualify as, -enclosed. Also responding to Commissioner Connolly, staff stated that the Code requires a two car garage; however, the Code is unclear as to whether new construction to replace a converted garage can simply duplicate the non -conforming situation or if the structure should be brought up to current Code standards. With sufficient room to construct a driveway on the east side of the house and a detached two car garage in the rear yard, ' staff poi:fitbd1_ out that the Commission can require two en- closiad parking _spaces _Z)n the - property. With regard to Commissioner McNulty's request for clarification, staff said that the issuance of permits prior to the annexation of the Eastview area would not have made the conversion legal. However, staff noted that, at the time of the conversion the County would have considered a carport as a replacement of an enclosed garage. Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 3 Chairperson Ortolano opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Page, 2035 Via Nova, Lomita, 90717, representing the buyers of the property, stressed that the requirement of a garage would impose an economical hardship on his clients. In response to Chairperson Ortolano's inquiry, he said that there is room on the property for the buyers to park their two vehicles. Mr. Larry Pritchard, 23210 Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance, 90505, representing the property owners (in Carol Southworth's absence), related the owner's request for the Commission's support of staff's Alternative No. 1. For the benefit of Commissioner Von Hagen, he clarified his authorization to represent the applicant. Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and passed unanimously. With regard to Chairperson Ortolano's request for information staff related that the 79 percent open space (including only the structures with building permits) is well within the 50 percent open space requirement in an RS -4 zone. However, _ staff said an illegal observation_ deck and_a_ coveredpatio_ in the rear yard ---could increase lot coverage. Chairperson Ortolano commented on the high quality of the construction at the location. She questioned whether the construction of a garage on the side of the house would necessitate a condition requiring the removal of some of the illegal rear yard structures. Staff responded that the east side and front yard setbacks could accommodate the addition of a garage and suggested that the illegal rear yard structures be dealt with separately. Commissioner Von Hagen stated his opinion that the illegal structures in the rear yard are irrelevant to the application. He voiced his support for staff's Alternative No. 1 with staff determining the need to address the illegal rear yard structures. Chairperson Ortolano stressed that the illegal rear yard structures should be consideredin conjunction with the application�ece_v�C, i� f��f.�l'' J P: •Q �;;=T F�%� With consideration to the problems related to the transfer of the property, Commissioner McNulty agreed that the items should be considered simultaneously. Commissioner Connolly agreed that simultaneous consideration of the items would benefit the sale of the property. Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 4 Director of Environmental Services Benard emphasized that the issue of the illegal rear yard structures is not before the Commission for review, nor will it be before the Commission unless the applicant requires a Variance from a standard that he may be violating; Commissioner McNulty discussed that the issue of lot coverage could arise should a Variance be requested for the illegal rear yard structures. §> Chairperson Ortolano voiced concern over, \t- is--ad=-T-r-i--st--e �-� �*� �*.� She said staff's knowledge of potential problems should be discussed with the 45,P Commission and brought to the attention of the publicw�'�^%Ver? noted her opposition to approving a potentially illegal situation. Commissioner Wike suggested that the item be continued until the lot coverage and open space, including the illegal rear yard structures, are known. Commissioner Wike moved continuance of the item until June 9, 1987 with the condition that Code Enforcement be brought forth immediately and that the illegal rear yard structures be considered- with the submitted Variance application as opposed- to'--keeluiring a second Varian6e';"seconded-by Chairperson Ortolano. Commissioner Von Hagen stressed that the issue before the Commission is strictly the Variance request. He stated confidence that the garage permits would not be issued should the inclusion of the illegal rear yard structures cause the lot coverage to exceed the Code. Commissioner McNulty said simultaneous consideration of the item would enable the applicant to file only one application. Commissioner Connolly stated his agreement with Commissioner Von Hagen. The motion was passed by majority with Commissioners Connolly and Von Hagen dissenting. Variance No. 158 Assistant Planner Laurie Brigham Robert &'Mary Ann Simon presented the staff report. 26843 Hyte In response to Commissioner Wike's inquiry, staff indicated that the applicant's motorhoine - could be legally parked in the driveway. Chairperson Ortolano opened the public hearing. Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 5 Mr. Robert H. Simon, 26843 of the request. He discussed: protection of his motorhome, and the General Plan have been roof, his desire to add gutters between the carport roof and the to storing the motorhome on Joe Maesto stating no objection former licensed contractor built • Hyte, applicant.,requested approval that the carport is for the that the requirements of the Code met, the pitch of the carport to the carport, minimum clearance top of the motorhome, opposition another site, a letter from Mr. to the request, and that a, the carport. Commissioner Wike stated her opinion that a carport does not protect vehicles from rain and dew. She noted that Building and Safety would inspect the carport for Code compliance should an approval be granted. Commissioner Connolly voiced concern over the aesthetic appearance of the carport. He said a carport roof similar to the roof on the applicant's residence would be more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Von Hagen stated concern over the stability of the carport. He discussed the storage of recreational vehicles with regard to a property owner's property rights. Ms. Rena Michel, 1116 Granvia Altamira, Palos Verdes Estates, 90274, indicated she visits the area frequently and requested denial of the -request. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that residen s living i neighborhood did not attend the meeting which was a noticed public hearing. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Commissioner Wike and passed unanimously. Chairper -(D- ciissea-.t- �even though some modifric tions son, .:E, I-zino-ais a to -the.-:= structure might make it more aesthetically'-fTldasing, a carport in the applicant's neighborhood is not a permitted use because it does not meet the requirement for an enclosed garage space. Staff clarified that a carport in the neighborhood is a permitted use; however, the lack of side setbacks makes the applicant's carport not conform with the Code requirement of a 5 foot setback. The applicant already has the required two -car garage. Addressing Commissioner Connolly's request for clarification, staff pointed out that the carport does not affect the open space since it is constructed over the driveway which was already included in the lot coverage. r Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 6 Commissioner Wike moved approval of staff's Alternative No. 2 to deny the request and to direct the applicant to remove or redesign the carport to comply with the 5 foot Code setback requirement. With regard to Chairperson Ortolano's inquiry, staff indicated that the carport could be redesigned to comply with the Code. However, the applicant would probably not be able to park his motorhome in the driveway and still access his garage and the Code requires that access to the two -car garage be maintained. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. Commissioner McNulty mentioned that Code Enforcement should be notified regarding a builder who is constructing structures without permits. Extreme Slope Permit No. 2 The presentation of the staff John Pruett - 6 Coach Road report was waived. Since' no one wished to spe'akto the request, _aa`publi.c hearing was -not -he+& Commissioner McNulty moved approval of staff's Alternative No. 3; seconded by Commissioner Connolly and passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. Chairperson Ortolano commended staff for the fine staff report. Grading No. 854 - Appeal Associate Planner Steve Rubin Larry Anderson presented the staff report. 1941 Upland Street Staff clarified that the legal problems between the appellant and the property owner at 1933 Upland do not involve the City. Commissioner Wike voiced concern over maintenance of the landscaping in a 6 inch setback as recommended by staff. In response to Commissioner Connolly, staff discussed that drainage for the proposed wall structures was not addressed in the application. Commissioner McNulty discussed that the appellant's plans referred to curb cuts but that the application did not. He emphasized that an approval of the request should contain a condition that there be no additional curb cuts for access to the appellant's property. Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 7 Chairperson Ortolano agreed that would be inappropriate. • any additional curb cuts Staff related lack of awareness regarding any proposed curb cuts and that no more than 40 percent of a lot frontage can be occupied with curb cuts. For the benefit of Chairperson Ortolano, staff pointed out that the staff recommendation does include that no A.C., concrete or other hard surface paving materials shall be installed in the appeallant's south side yard. At the request of Chairperson Ortolano, staff clarified that the original application was denied at the staff level because it exceeded the 3.5 foot maximum height criteria for side yard retaining walls. However, staff indicated support of an approval of the request at this time with the inclusion of mitigating measures as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Lawrence Anderson, 1941 Upland, appellant, discussed: safety problems related to placing wrought iron fencing on top of a retaining wall, his desire for a 9 1/2 foot solid wall at maximum height, his intent to install additional curb cuts, his letter dated May 20, 1987 to Chairperson Ortolano, and the request is for storage of his trailer, access to—his- rear yardi and increasing the usability of his property. Chairperson Ortolano noted the appellant's desire of a 9 1/2 foot solid wall at maximum height. Staff clarified that the proposed wall would step (increase) -- in height from the front to the rear property line and that 30 feet of the wall would be 5 feet high and the hand rail safety requirement only applies when a wall is greater than 30 inches. Responding to Mr. Anderson's inquiry, Chairperson Ortolano and Commissioner McNulty stated their understanding that it would be legal to utilize temporary ramps to gain access to the property. Mrs. Elaine Furman, 1933 Upland, stressed her opposition to the request. She discussed: the inaccuracy of Mr. Anderson's plans, the land erosion resulting from Mr. Anderson's removal of vegetation, the legal action between herself and Mr. _Anderson to ._establi'sh :-the property ---line between,1933"and- 1941 Upland, and if approved the project should be conditioned to blend - with the neighborhood. Chairperson Ortolano stated concern over the possibility of grading and discussed that a concrete driveway would detract from the open space. Staff indicated that some grading which would include the area in the front yard would be necessary. Staff mentioned that turf. block-,` whichl would not affect the lot coverage, could be used as an alternative to a concrete driveway. 9 Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 8 0 Chairperson Ortolano stated concern over the application being evaluated using the property line as provided by Mr. Anderson. Staff related that the property line provided by Mr. Anderson is in compliance with the related tract map. Mr. Alex Powell, Cornwell, Powell & Williamson, representing the Furman -'-,s, clarified that the legal action is in dispute of the prescriptive easement, which would ultimately include the location of the property line. For the record, Commissioner McNulty stated his professional acquaintance with Mr. Powell. Commissioner Connolly voiced concern that a Commission decision could be used as prima facia evidence in the pending legal action. Chairperson Ortolano stated her opinion that any consideration of the City's decision would be at the discretion of the judge. Commissioner Wike moved that the Commission accept staff's Alternative No. 2 to deny the application for the following reasons: the curb cuts, the 6 inch setback and the appellant's disagreement with the recommended wall height as noted in Item No. 4 of the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Chairperson Ortolano. Commissioner McNulty sted his intent to abstain from -any related vote due to his pn=6%VWPi acquaintance with 21 S -�OIF Commissioner Von Hagen discussed that the 6 inch setback could be greater and that Public Works governs the curb cuts. He said continuing the item would be appropriate. Commissioner Connolly related that the 6 inch setback as recommended by staff should be a minimum of 18 inches and that Public Works governs the curb cuts. He voiced opposition to a 9 1/2 foot solid wall as requested by the appellant. Chairperson Ortolano stated opposition to the 6 inch setback as recommended by staff and to the 9 1/2 foot solid wall as requested by the app6711ant.. Addressing Chairperson Ortolano's inquiry, Director of Environmental Services Benard stated that a continuance of the item would be a disservice to the residents who might have a concern over the issue. He stated .. that the State law, which requires reviewreview of an application within 1'80 days following submittal, does-, not',address,appeaas­. However, he'noted the City Attofney's opinion that an appeal should also be considered in 180 days, and that the Code should be modified to specifically address time cer ain appeal requirements. 0 Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 9 • The motion was defeated by a 2-2 vote with Commissioners Von Hagen and Connolly dissenting and Commissioner McNulty abstaining. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to continue the item until the pending legal action is resolved; seconded by Commissioner Connolly. Commissioner McNulty revised his position to abstain indicating that his acquaintance with feller would in no way affect a continuance of the item. AVAA,1,e(54A15 01AJ r -"u( mail's 0 prortla The motion was passed by a -3-2 vote -w-ith--Chdl-rpe-rs-o-n--()rtolano and Commissioner Wike dissenting. In regard to Chairperson Ortolano's request, staff indicated that the City Attorney's opinion regarding a decision to vote after abstaining from a previous vote of an item will be xooa-&4e4 at the June 9 meeting. CSC! ",_ (.I ;', R VD -T F, M U. -I U -i k I J, : f -i 41 CUP No. 23 - Rev "P" Assistant Planner Laurie Brigham Anthony Pools presented the staff report. -324Z4 Aqua _Vista =Drive Addressing Commissioner Von Hagen's request for clarification, staff discussed the staff recommendation to approve the spa and a 4 foot deck, amounting to 65.1 percent open space (4.9 percent less than the Seacliff Hills Guidelines minimum of 70 percent). Staff said such a recommendation can be supported', by the lack of visibility from surrounding properties and that a landscaping requirement included in the approval would achieve a project consistent with the intent of the Guidelines. For the benefit of Chairperson Ortolano, staff noted that the applicant is in the process of submitting a Variance to allow the existing 6 foot wall to remain within the front setback. Staff clarified for Commissioner Wike that the retaining portion of the wall is 3 1/2 feet and that the greatest portion of the freestanding wall is 6 feet. With regard to Commissioner Von Hagen's discussion, staff pointed out that the overlapping of the existing deck and the proposed pool/spa was considered in the staff analysis of lot coverage. Staff noted that removal of the existing 945 square foot covered patio would bring the pro3ect into compliance with the Guidelines. C! Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 10 Responding to Commissioner inclusion of stepping stones discretion and clarified deck as opposed to a 5 foot applicant. E Connolly, staff indicated that the in lot coverage is at the Commission's the staff recommendation of a 4 foot 5 inch deck as requested by the At the request of Chairperson Ortolano, staff related their interpretation that open space is preserved to achieve a balance of area covered by structures for the benefit of the general public. chairpbrson- Orto-lano stated- that the solid wall surrounding the property does not assist in preserving open space. Director of Environmental Services Benard noted that any property owner has the right to build a 6 foot fence at appropriate dimensions from the property line. For the benefit of Commissioner Wike, staff discussed that all of the grading done has been permitted, with the exception of one retaining wall. Staff -also- -rioted v; that_ f111 i9','.uI,t6stbd, -f or'-- paction- .pomL ,_y' by d' Safety. Mr. Herb Hyatt, 32424 Aqua Vista Drive, applicant, requested approval of the application. Commissioner Connolly moved approval of the application; seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen. Commissioner Wike voiced concern over a deviation from the 70 percent open space as included in the Guidelines. Commissioner Von Hagen stressed that the applicant's property is unique and that the project would not be visible from the surrounding properties. Commissioner McNulty stated concern over the .-lot coverager_..:­-.-.. However, he discussed that the project would provide adequate use of the property without infringing on the public's rights and that the topography of the property is unique. Chairperson Ortolano stated her conception of open space to include view and the feeling of openness. She voiced concern over the cumulative impact related to an approval of the application. She voiced her support of the Project with a condition that a pool slide shall be' p-r-ahi*bited?- Commissioner Connolly moved approval of the application including a 4 foot wide, 496 square foot deck and a condition that there shall be no pool slide; seconded by Chairperson Ortolano and passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. • Minutes May 26, 1987 Page 11 AUDIENCE QUESTIONS None. REPORTS Staff Responding to Commissioner McNulty's comments, Director of Environmental Services Benard discussed that the active Code violations related to satellite receivers are being held in abeyance until a new Ordinance is developed to conform to the new Federal regulations governing satellite receivers. Staff noted the Commission/Staff dinner meeting date of Wednesday, June 10, 6:00 PM, at Commissioner McNulty's. Commission Commissioner McNulty discussed Council's action regarding the upcoming conference in Palm Springs. He felt Council could have invited the Commissioners at their own expense. Director of Environmental Services Benard stated that the intent of Council's discussion was as stated by Commissioner McNulty. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duly ad3ourned at 11:00 PM.