Loading...
PC MINS 19900312MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 12, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7:38pm by Chairman Von Hagen at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Von Hagen, McNulty, Hotchkiss, Brooks, Katherman ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, and Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas and Donna Jerex. Chairman Von Hagen welcomed Commissioner Brooks back from her leave of absence. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen acknowledged letters from Dimension Cable in support of the Long Point project, and from Mrs. Pocapalia regarding CUP 161. Commissioner Brooks stated she had received a copy of a sample form letter endorsing the Monaghan project. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of February 12, 1990 -- Chairman Von Hagen asked that a correction be added to his statements regarding the Kajima project. B. P. C. Resolution No. 91-_, Height Variation No. 700, Minor Exception Permit No. 403 -- Appeal. On the motion of Commissioner McNulty, with a second from Commissioner Katherman, the Consent Calendar was approved with Commissioner Brooks abstaining and Commissioner Katherman abstaining from voting on Item "B". PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. Assistant Planner Fabio de 663 -- APPEAL Freitas presented the staff 4714 Browndeer Lane report regarding the appellant's request to overturn the Director's denial of a first and second story addition. Staff's recommendation is to uphold the Director's decision. Mr. de Freitas also corrected the total square footage of the driveway and total project, noting that it kept the project within the open space requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION &TING March 12, 1990 In regards to the staff statement that the final project would be larger than most homes in the neighborhood, Commissioner Brooks and Commissioner Hotchkiss both stated they disagreed with the staff assessment that the final project would be too large for the neighborhood. Eleonora Witteles, 4714 Browndeer Lane, appellant, asked the Commission to uphold her appeal, stating she needed to enlarge the small bedrooms and enclose the pool for health reasons. She also claimed that the size of the final project would be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Brooks asked if she would be willing to change the side garage wall to bring it in farther from the setback, and the appellant replied that she would but it would not look as good aesthetically. David Johnson, 4737 Artesia Blvd., Lawndale, architect, explained how he had designed the project to fit in with the neighborhood. John Early, 1435 Beacon St., San Pedro, contractor, asked the Commission to uphold the appeal. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Katherman agreed that the size of the project was not a problem and that the design was good, but that there was a concern with the side setback, and he suggested the appellant move the side wall at least one foot expanding the sideyard setback to six feet. Commissioner Brooks stated she had visited the site and also felt the proposed project size was compatible with the area, but echoed Mr. Katherman's concerns about the side setback, and suggested again that the sideyard be expanded. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he had no problems with the project as it stood, even regarding the side setback, and felt it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner McNulty agreed with staff that the proposed addition would make the house too large for the area, especially since it was on a corner lot and very visible. Chairman Von Hagen stated he felt the applicant had made an effort to conform, but that the addition would make the house too large for the substandard size lot. Commissioner Brooks moved to uphold the appeal, adding a requirement that there be an 8' sideyard setback on the south side. Commissioner Katherman seconded the motion, which failed 2-3, with Commissioners McNulty, Hotchkiss and Chairman Von Hagen dissenting. Commissioner Katherman moved to uphold the appeal, adding a condition that the south sideyard setback be 61. Commissioner Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION TING March 12, 1990 Brooks seconded the motion, which failed 2-3, with Commissioners McNulty, Hotchkiss and Chairman Von Hagen dissenting. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to adopt staff alternative #1, to approve the applicant's appeal, thereby overturning the Director's decision, thus approving the Height Variation request. Commissioner Katherman seconded the motion, which passed 3-2, with Commissioner McNulty and Chairman Von Hagen dissenting. RECESS & RECONVENE A five-minute break was called at 8:30pm. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Commissioner Katherman stated NO. 161, ENVIRONMENTAL that he would not be ASSESSMENT NO. 617 participating in voting on this 18 Rockinghorse Rd. issue, since he was the applicant. Planning Administrator Curtis Williams presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow the continued use of a guest house as a second residential unit on a single-family residential lot. Mr. Williams also noted that it was possible the City could get State credit for low- income housing with this rental unit. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. In response to the Commission's queries, Director Benard explained that the State could take steps to force the City to fulfill low-income housing requirements, such as withholding City authority to issue permits, or making density changes in zoning. Chairman Von Hagen asked if on this application, a case could be made for a non -conforming prior use, and Mr. Williams replied that the unit had been in existence prior to incorporation, but that there was no evidence the use was the same. Robert Katherman, 18 Rockinghorse Rd., applicant, stated he was speaking as a private citizen, and noted this was a land use issue. He also stated he was not interested in creating a rental property or low-income unit, but was trying to legalize a pre-existing situation. Mr. Katherman stated he would not be renting to anyone but family members that might or might not be low-income or seniors, because he did not wish to devalue the property, but that he would look into legalizing the use through a parcel map process if necessary. The applicant also said he did not feel this was precedent - setting, because every application before the Commission was individually viewed and discussed. Mr. Katherman also stated he would not be in favor of the possible lot split because the setback requirements would force partial or total demolition of one or both of the structures on the lot. He also noted he planned to upgrade the small unit in Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 41ETING March 12, 1990 appearance. Regarding the conditions Katherman stated he was in agreement with slightly modified language. • of approval, Mr. with all but #1 and #3 In response to a question from Commissioner McNulty, Mr. Williams stated that the City had never passed a second -unit ordinance, and therefore state law and housing guidelines were used as interpretive criteria in this case. Mr. McNulty pointed out that those guidelines limited second -unit housing to 640 sq.ft., and since this unit was 800 sq.ft., it was not legal according to the State, and that he believed the City did not have a right to circumvent this law, since there was not an existing City ordinance in place. Director Benard said he interpreted the State law as being more discretionary in this regard. Chairman Von Hagen asked staff if the condition requiring that a family member rent the unit would invalidate the opportunity for the City to claim the unit as part of the Housing Element, and Mr. Williams replied that a regular report to the City regarding the renter would have to be made, and that some credit from the State was likely Barbara Wallace, 2 Coach Road, spoke against the application, stating she and her neighbors felt this was more of a zoning question, and asked that the vote be postponed so more people could be notified. Char Gallio, 2809 Via E1 Miro, read her letter in opposition to the application on the grounds that it was contrary to the General Plan and State law, and would set a bad precedent. Chairman Von Hagen took a moment to note the well -noticed but ill -attended hearings on the Housing Element, and asked why a resident with a bona fide request should have to wait to get an answer so that the issue could be discussed further, although Commissioner Brooks suggested a continuance to allow more of a public hearing. Edwin Watkins, 26 Rockinghorse Rd., stated his opposition to the application, agreeing with the previous speakers. Robert Katherman, 18 Rockinghorse Rd., stated he had no objection to the suggested continuance, and would welcome the chance to have the entire City address the various issues in question. Commissioner Brooks moved to continue the item. Commissioner Hotchkiss reiterated that there have already been public hearings on the Housing Element, and that this was an existing structure and not precedent -setting, and Commissioner Brooks said she felt this was a test of the Housing Element. Chairman Von Hagen seconded Mrs. Brooks' motion to continue, but stated he would have preferred to Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONCTING March 12, 1990 vote on the issue instead. Commissioners Hotchkiss and McNulty also stated they were prepared to vote on the application, and Mr. McNulty pointed out that the Housing Element was never intended to provide an avenue for making money off of single family residences, but was rather a structured program of using multiple units in vacant areas to fulfill State requirements. He also stated this was a rental property in a residential area, that this was a zoning question, and should be a lot split. The question was called to continue the item to the April 9 meeting, and the motion passed 3-1, with Commissioner Hotchkiss dissenting. RECESS & RECONVENE A ten-minute break was called at 10:15pm. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT On the suggestion of Director NO. 130 -- REV "B" Benard, the Commission moved to A&H Associates receive and file a letter of Tract 45667 withdrawal from the applicant. NEW BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Assistant Planner Donna Jerex NO. 23 -- REV -TT-, presented the staff report GRADING NO. 1518 regarding the applicant's 3432 Palo Vista Drive. request to revise the footprint and development specified in the CUP. Staff's recommendation is to conditionally approve the project, provided the applicant redesign to meet the development standards with regard to height for sloping lots. Director Benard noted that this was the first time the sloping lot provision of Proposition "M" had been applied. Bruce Krause, 777 Silver Spur Rd., RHE, architect, explained how the project had been designed to accommodate the slope of the project, and stated that they would prefer to use slab flooring to reduce the amount of grading rather than eliminate the floor area. Commissioner Hotchkiss asked staff if this was a grading issue, and Director Benard replied that the grading quantity was acceptable under the guidelines, but that the height was an issue in conjunction with the stepped foundation. Commissioner Brooks stated she had no problem with the project as proposed since the difference was invisible underneath the project, and she also felt the guidelines were unclear in this regard. Commissioner Katherman stated he felt there was no problem with the project since he felt it satisfied the intent of the height limitations, and that it was a grading issue rather than a height issue, with no difference in appearance. Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION TING March 12, 1990 Chairman Von Hagen noted that since the intent of the cut was to set ridgeline cap limitations in accordance with Proposition "M", it should be enforced. Commissioner Katherman moved to approve the project as proposed, with a change from a wood floor to slab and the resultant reduction of export material by 300 cu.yds. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion. Commissioner McNulty suggested that none of the grading material be exported but rather re -graded onto the property. The applicant's representative stated that would be done to the best of their ability, but that 350-380 yards would still need to be exported. The motion on the floor passed unanimously. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS There were no audience questions. STAFF REPORTS Director Benard stated that Planning Administrator Curtis Williams was leaving the City to take a post as Director of Planning and Building for the Town of Woodside in Northern California. Chairman Von Hagen and the Commission expressed their regrets at the news, stating they had enjoyed working with Mr. Williams, who they felt demonstrated a high degree of professionalism, and felt it was a loss to the staff, but wished him well in his new venture. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Brooks expressed interest in participating in the Development Code Subcommittee, or in attending the meetings. Director Benard stated that these meetings were subcommittee meetings and only two Commissioners could attend or a quorum would be present and the meetings would require public noticing. Commissioner McNulty stated that information and actions taken would be conveyed to the other Commissioners. 41�3fell) ;ik,lyl:i;ya The meeting was adjourned at 11:02pm to the March 18 meeting at Ladera Linda. Page 6