Loading...
PC MINS 19890613PP4-J pf V MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 13, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Wike at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Von Hagen, Wike, Connolly, McNulty ABSENT: Ortolano Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, Associate Planner Laurie Brigham, Associate Planner Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson, and Assistant Planner Marcia Smith. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairperson Wike removed Item A and B from the Consent Calendar for discussion prior to the close of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Variance No. 227 The Staff Report on this item Grading No. 1261 was waived. 49 1/2 Rockinghorse Associate Planner Laurie Brigham clarified the recommendation for one 5 foot and one four and a half foot wall rather than one nine foot wall. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. There being no persons wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Notion was made by Commissioner McNulty and seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen to approve the Staff recommendation to approve the project as proposed. Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Connolly requested that Staff take Polaroid photographs of the site for comparison purposes between the current time and when the project is completed. Site Plan Review No. 4934 Planning Administrator Williams explained that the applicant has been requested to provide a detailed analysis from a qualified technician for Staff to review and make a recommendation regarding the most appropriate location for the satellite dish. Motion was made by Commissioner McNulty and seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen to approve the Staff recommendation for a continuance of this application to June 27, 1989. Notion unanimously carried. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1989 - patwo Variance No. 233 27922 Longhill Drive • Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson presented the Staff -Report on the applicant's proposal for a six-foot high block wall and wrought iron gate within the required 20 foot setback. Ms. Olson reported that the proposed project was legally recorded as lot 27 of Tract 27331. The configuration of lots 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 presents a unique hardship to the owner of lot 27 because it has virtually no landscaped open space in the front setback, due to the shared ingress and egress easements of these contiguous properties. Ms. Olson concluded that the project as proposed is not contrary to the General Plan. Due to the configuration of four adjacent flag lots and the substandard front yard area, it is Staff's opinion that the findings necessary for granting a Variance to allow for the reduction in the front setback requirement for the proposed six-foot high wall and gate have been met. Staff therefore recommended that the Variance be approved as conditioned. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. Edward Hallett 27922 Longhill Drive, owner of the property, again requested approval of the Variance, stating that the fenced area that could be seen by passers-by would be of wrought iron construction, and would allow for full view of a formal Japanese garden. Also, only three neighbors within a 300 foot zone would be visually affected by the proposed construction. Mr. Hallet added that the proposal would provide him with security, safety and privacy, and would not infringe upon the rights of the landowners adjacent to his property. Chairperson Wike closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner McNulty and seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen to approve the Variance as recommended by Staff. Motion unanimously carried. Variance No. 235 Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson Coastal Permit No. 71 presented the Staff Report on 10 Pinetree Lane the proposal for additions and modifications to the existing structure totaling 672 square feet. Plannihg CommissionMinutes liune 13, 1989 - pac* hree Ms. Olson pointed out that the Certificate of Compliance states that the development of this parcel is severely restricted because it is located within the Coastal Setback Zone. It also states that at the time the Certificate was issued, in 1987, this parcel was also subject to a Building Moratorium and that until this Moratorium is lifted, any additions or modifications to the existing structure are severely limited. She also stated that requests for approval of additions within the Coastal Setback Zone have limited the entire project to 250 square feet. However, due to the lot size, substandard depth and width, Staff could make the findings for granting a Variance and Coastal Permit to allow reduction in the side setback requirements for the proposed habitable space, but the necessary findings to grant a Variance for the deck could not be made. It was found that other decks which exist in the area and which were built without permits could not justify the proposed deck in conjunction with the proposed addition, particularly over an extreme slope. In addition, the proposed deck is adjacent to a common area and the addition over 250 square feet is not consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan. Ms. Olson concluded that it was Staff's recommendation to approve the Coastal Permit and Variance as conditioned. In discussing the proposed project, Commissioner Connolly noted that he had observed a crack in the patio which ran almost the entire length of the dwelling. Commissioner McNulty asked that Staff deal concurrently with all code enforcement items involving the property, e.g., research should be done to determine if the jacuzzi was installed with the proper authorizations. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. William Hassoldt, 10 Pinetree Lane, property owner, distributed photographs of the property, a lettei from a geologist, and letters from his neighbors consenting to the proposal. He clarified the dimensions of the deck, reviewed the processes he had been involved with the Staff, and noted that he was unclear about Staff's perception of the total square footage of the deck over the setback. In response to Commissioner McNulty's question about the moratorium exemption by the City Council, Director of Environmental Services Benard clarified the purpose of the Council action. Judith Hassoldt, 10 Pinetree Lane, discussed the uniqueness of the property and stressed the importance of the deck to the quality of the lives of her family. Regarding the covenant that exists on the property, Commissioner McNulty pointed out that the covenant was imposed in order to obtain the moratorium exemption, and only the City Council could remove it. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1989 - P* four Chairperson Wike closed the public hearing. The following concerns were expressed by the Commissioners regarding the proposal: ted by the City Council; the existing deck area surround' the south ding A— ai�d east side of the dwelling was felt to be adequate; there was a question about where construction of the deck begins over the extreme slope; need -for more accurate information- on the plans. Notion was made by Commissioner Von Hagen and seconded by Chairman Connolly to continue this item to July lle 1989. Motion carried. Commissioner McNulty dissented. A recess was taken from 9:00 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. Tentative Parcel Map No. 21015 Environmental Assessment No. 575 5303 Bayridge Road Assistant Planner Marcia Smith presented the Staff Report and noted that the wording in Condition No. 25 was chaa�ed to retl—ecf-t-h—ef—act tHa—tc alcu-1 —at ions :relating to parkland fees would be ,made later. Ms. Smith reviewed the proposal, which is to subdivide a 0.49 acre parcel into two lots. Access onto the two properties would be provided via a common driveway. Ms. Smith noted that Staff believes the proposed subdivision would satisfy the requirements of the State law and the City's Development Code and General Plan concerning subdivisions of land. Any proposed structures on the properties will be reviewed by Staff, and if necessary, by the Commission. Ms. Smith concluded that the Staff recommendation is to adopt a negative declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 575 and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 21015. Chairperson Wike stated that she had received correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. J. Scrimger and a petition from 15 residents which emphatically objected to the proposal. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. Craig Knickerbocker, 5690 Mistridge, the landowner, pointed out the following: the lot split is in compliance with all ordinances;'a variance is not being requested; he would be willing to covenant the property for views, additional construction, side yard fencing, etc. Speaking in opposition to the proposal were the following residents: Lance Grindle, 5337 Bayridge Road; Al Scow, 5302 Bayridge Road; Paul Gaetcher, 5345 Bayridge Road; Rollin Sturgeon, 5456 Bayridge Road; Brenda McNamara, 5402 Bayridge Planning Commissi*141nutes .June 13, 1989 - P five Road; Stacy Martin, 5338 Bayridge Road; Alma Meyer, 26226 Birchfield Avenue; Greg Barnes, 26211 Birchfield Avenue; Lucy Brooks, 5405 Bayridge Road; William Slagg, 5287 Rolling Ridge Road. Their concerns included the fact that a precedent would be set by this project; access and egress into the canyon; massive excavation that would be required to accommodate house No. 1; parking, safety and density; view impairment; fencing; and the negative impact this project would have upon the entire area. John Dunckell 2315 Lomita Boulevard, Lomita, representing Knickerbocker & Associates, addressed some of the points that were raised in opposition, including liability issues, and noted that the sizes of the proposed homes will be in conformance with those already existing in the neighborhood. Director of Environmental Services Benard noted that there are approximately nine lots in the neighborhood that could be subdivided and still meet the Development Code. He pointed out that if this lot were to be developed as a single parcel, a structure with approximately 6,000 square feet could be built on it with no discretionary review by Staff. Chairperson Wike closed the public hearing. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that the application is fully lawful, and one which the Commission has no grounds to deny. A view analysis cannot be made until the applicant has submitted an application to construct a structure on the parcel. He added that offsite parking is a prevalent problem in cul-de-sacs. Notion was made by Commissioner Von Hagen to adopt the Staff recommendation to approve the project subject to conditions. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Connolly stated that he could not support the recommendation to approve the project because this would indicate a precedent. The reasons he was opposed to the project included open space, increased density, view obstruction from neighbors on both sides. Notion was made by Commissioner Connolly and seconded by Chairperson Wike to deny the project. Notion carried. Commissioner Von Hagen dissented. Commissioner McNulty commented that it appears that the applicant has not adequately communicated with the residents in the neighborhood, and stressed that the Planning Commission has never considered a project simply because an individual or individuals will benefit financially from it. He concluded that he was in favor of denying the project because of the overwhelming outpouring of objections and in view of the fact that the proposal would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. ,.Planning Commissi*Minutes June 13, 1989 - P six • Chairperson Wike was also opposed to the project because of the privacy that would be lost by the residents on both sides of the property. Other concerns of hers included setbacks and lot coverages. Director of Environmental Services Benard noted that a -Pesolution for denial had not been prepared because the applicant was in compliance with all City codes. He explained that view is not a criteria on a land subdivision and his desire to have the Commission specify the criteria to be sited for denial in order to create a document that would be defensible bx7 the City. The specific rationale cited by the Commission for a denial were: (1) Parking; (2) Traffic; (3) Density; (4) the overall impact of the project on this small cul-de-sac street. Also, with the concurrence of the Commission, the existing Resolutions were redrafted by Mr. Benard as follows: Sections 1 and 2 will be deleted. The language in Sections 3, 4 and 5 will be rephrased in the negative; there will be no change to Section 6; Section 7, 1 necessary, will be moffi-fied to state thathe Negative Declaration is approved but the Tentative Parcel Map is denied. The effective date oftheam—ended—Re—Ei-61�ut-fo—n—will 15—e —June l­3_,_l_9_a_9F_._ CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of April 25, 1989 Notion was made by Commissioner Von Hagen and seconded by Chairperson Wike to review the minutes at the next Planning Commission meeting. Notion unanimously carried. P.C. Resolution No. 89 Chairperson Wike noted that C.U.P. No. 23 "EE" the Commission had agreed 2938 Vista Del Mar to reword Exhibit A of the Resolution as follows: 1. A landscape, irrigation, and fencing plan for the entire property shall be submitted to the Director of Environmental Services for review and approval. The plan shall include open fence (90% light and air) in the rear yard from the rear of the building to the rear property line and along Palos - -Verdes Drive --East: Landscaping shall beconsistentwith the Seacliff Hills Guidelines. Notion was made to approve the project with the revised wording. Notion carried. Chairperson Wike dissented. CONTINUED BUSINESS Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines; Fences and Walls Associate Planner Carolynn Petru noted that a revised Staff report has been prepared based on the Commission's comments at the April 25, 1989 meeting. Planning CommissiMinutes -June 13, 1989 - P6 seven In discussing the revised Staff report, the Commission recommended removal of Items 2.a and 2.b. It was agreed that there should be no solid walls except for privacy and security, and all other walls should admit 90% light and air, The Commission also stressed that there should be no six-foot high solid walls along Palos Verdes Drive South, no lights affixed to fences in a way that they could shine onto neighboring property, no tiered walls and no garden walls without a landscaping plan. Director of Environmental Services noted the Staff Report will be rewritten and brought back to the Commission for approval,pn June 27, 1989. STAFF REPORT Commissioner Connolly directed the Commission's attention to Page 17 of the Housing Element Law to show that it is very specific in the implication that local governments are required to provide low to moderate income housing. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to June 27, 1989 at Hesse Park Community Room.