Loading...
PC MINS 19901127MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7:35pm by Chairman McNulty at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT McNulty, Von Hagen, Hotchkiss, Brooks, Katherman ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, Associate Planner John Leung, and Assistant Planners Terry Silverman and Fabio de Freitas. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Brooks acknowledged receipt of a letter from Sam Goldberg regarding unsightly properties, and Director Benard stated that code enforcement was following up on the matter. CONSENT CALENDAR A. P.C. Resolution No. 90- , Conditional Use Permit No. 160, Sign Permit No. 536 --Commissioner Von Hagen asked that the resolution be amended to state that the mast may fly flags of non-commercial nature, not limiting it to only state flags. B. P.C. Resolution No. 90- , Height Variation No. 652 -- Chairman McNulty acknowledged receipt of three documents regarding this application, and moved, seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and carried, to accept the documents and to adopt the proposed alternative Resolution deleting Condition #6. C. GRADING NO. 1494 Chairman McNulty moved, seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen and carried, to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Commissioner Brooks noted her abstention from items "A" and "B", and her "yes" vote on Item "C". PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 674 -- APPEAL appellant's request to appeal of a second story addition. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas presented the staff report regarding the staff's administrative approval Staff's recommendation is to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 1990 deny the appeal, thereby upholding staff approval, with conditions. Commissioner Brooks asked why the temporary frame was not up to standards, and Mr. de Freitas replied that the frame had gone up nine months before the guidelines were established. The public hearing was opened. Ann Stone, 28125 Ambergate Drive, appellant, presented a map of the properties claiming potential view impairment. She also stated she felt there would be a negative cumulative impact as a result of the project, which she also deemed incompatible with the neighborhood due to its excessive size, and she asked the Commission to uphold her appeal. Commissioner Brooks asked why Ms. Stone had not appealed the administrative action before the appeal period had ended, and she replied that she had never received any notice on the matter. Sheila Hoff, 28205 Ambergate, presented photos and a view analysis supporting her claim of potential cumulative and view impact, and complained that the staff report did not directly address her affected property. Charles Hoff, 28205 Ambergate, presented a letter on behalf of Edward Kurata to be added to the record, and spoke in favor of the appeal, suggesting an engineer analyze the project to give a more accurate report of the impact. Joanne Campman, 6910 Maycroft, asked the Commission to uphold the appeal, citing cumulative impact and neighborhood incompatibility. David Campman, 6910 Maycroft, also spoke against the Height Variation, citing cumulative impact. Walter C. Wey, 28113 Ambergate, read his letter to the staff objecting to the proposed addition on the grounds,of potential cumulative impact, and he also presented photos in support of his opinion. Bill Cleary, 6935 Brookford, asked the Commission to uphold the appeal, expressing concern about the ability of the soil to support the addition, and the effect of cumulative impact. Marion Koines, 28133 Ambergate, spoke in support of the appeal, and presented photographs taken from her living room showing potential view impact. She also stated she felt the project would be incompatible with the mostly one-story neighborhood. Richard Lee, 28285 Trailriders Drive, spoke in support of the appeal, also citing neighborhood incompatibility and negative Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 1990 cumulative impact. Pat Ringer, 6957 Brookford, also spoke against the Height Variation, stating she agreed with the previous speakers. Joyce Gibson, 6934 Brookford, applicant, responding to a question from Commissioner Katherman, stated that the reason the pro3ect had been designed width -wise was because to build it deeper into the lot would have had a more severe view impact on the neighbors. Ms. Gibson also stated there would only be her family living in the home. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Von Hagen suggested a continuance so that the Commissioners could more fully examine the potential view impact from more of the affected properties. Commissioner Brooks stated she had visited some of those properties and did feel that there was significant view impact as well as potential cumulative impact. Ms. Brooks also stated she would like to see the temporary frame brought up to current standards. Mr. Benard again noted that as there had been no standards in effect when the frame went up, the applicant was not required to update it. Commissioner Katherman also suggested a continuance and a voluntary re -flagging of the frame by the applicant, and stated he was not prepared to vote approval of the addition because of the mass of the facade and the lack of neighborhood compatibility. Chairman McNulty stated his main objection was the potential cumulative impact and neighborhood incompatibility. Commissioner Von Hagen then moved t continue the item for two weeks pending further invest' tion, and included in this motion an appeal to the applic to fix the temporary frame voluntarily. Commissioner seconded the motion, which failed on a 2-3 vote, with Commissioners Hotchkiss, Brooks and Chairman McNulty dissenting. Commissioner Brooks then moved to uphold the appeal to deny the second story addition, Chairman McNulty seconded, and the motion passed 3-1 with Commissioner Hotchkiss dissenting and Commissioner Von Hagen abstaining. B. VARIANCE NO. 272 Assistant Planner de Freitas 30524 Ganado presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow two existing concrete block structures to remain in their present locations in the sideyard setbacks. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. The public hearing was opened. Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 1990 Charles Belak-Berger, 423 S. PCH, Suite 208, Redondo Beach, applicant and architect for the landowner, stated he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners Von Hagen, Brooks and Katherman stated they did not feel there was a need to reduce the storage shed height to 6'. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to grant the variance, altering the conditions so as not to require any height reduction of the storage shed. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. C. VARIANCE NO. 273 Director Benard presented the GRADING NO. 1491 staff report regarding the 2727 Colt Rd. applicant's request,to approve a 3 -story single family residence with a property ridge height 12 ft. higher than the 26 ft. maximum height allowed. Staff's recommendation is to deny the application as requested, and to approve only the footprint, grading and reduction in the front setback. Commissioner Brooks asked if the structure as planned would be the highest house in the City at 38' if it were approved, and Director Benard stated it would be the tallest he was aware of. The public hearing was opened. Peter Mitilineos, 23527 Susana Ave., Torrance, applicant, stated that he needed a big house because of his extended family, and that due to the steep configuration of the steep lot, the only way to get the room necessary was to go up, and that it would affect no one's view. The applicant also noted that there was another 3 -story house on Colt Road, and he presented photos supporting his arguments. Director Benard explained that the applicant had submitted a Variance in order to go above 26 ft., because under a Height Variation, he would not be able to go any higher than 26 ft. Commissioner Katherman asked the applicant if he was willing to dedicate the trail easement, and Mr. Mitilineos stated he would be happy to do so. Alvin Serpa, 14 Golden Spur Lane, neighbor, spoke in support of the applicant's proposal, stating he did not object to the height or size of the project. Bob Vanderhoof, 777 Silver Spur Rd., architect for the applicant, outlined the design process, stating that one reason they had gone higher than normal was to make sure that at least a part of the roof line was visible from the street Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 1990 for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Vanderhoof also presented showing compatible houses in the area, and noted that soil problems near the edge of the pad, the height of house would mitigate need for caissons that would be necessary if the house were two-story, taking up more footprint. photos due to the of the Commissioner Katherman complimented the architect on the design, but expressed concern with the overall height, questioning the height of the clerestory ceilings. The architect explained that 10' had been utilized on the first two floors to pick up the street face and to adjust the problem with the garage access. A letter from David English, 2 Top Rail Lane, in support of the project, was made part of the application, and the public hearing was closed. Director Benard noted that in making a recommendation on this application, the staff had taken into account only the uniqueness of the property and reasonable development potential, not necessarily the individual needs or desires of the applicant. Commissioner Katherman stated that he had been persuaded by the comments of the speakers that the 38' height had merit, and that if there were ever a site for a 3 -story building in RFV, this would be it. Commissioner Von Hagen stated he could not make the findings for the height, even though he also approved of the design and thought it was an appropriate location. Mr. Von Hagen stated that he felt there was substantial additional buildable area on the property, and he expressed reluctance to compromise the integrity of the ordinance. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he thought the design was very good, and that he hated to see small compromises made that would affect it adversely. Mr. Hotchkiss also said he could not make the findings for the height, but would like to. Commissioner Brooks asked if early neighborhood notification had been made, and Mr. Benard stated that it was not required under a Variance. Mrs. Brooks stated she was uncomfortable with not doing such a notification on a project with such an excessive height. The architect stated that the actual height was 35-1/2', and that they would be willing to do a special neighborhood notification. Ccrwr,�..s�c.�,..�. Y.aJ41",��,,,,..� r:�..t•�4�.�r.. 5�..£�c c+.�v�rar var�eaa�c atapl►ti«�►.�.� �+�ln.s t�+►,. �,-� Vara.n procaA0VA.4 'A'4 -ft Mr. Benard noted that the Commission co u continue ttfte em and suggest to the applicant that they go through the process of early neighborhood notification, and come back to the Commission with the results. Commissioner Brooks moved to the continue the item to a January date to allow the Page 5 0 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 1990 applicant to pursue the notification process. Commissioner Katherman seconded the motion, which failed 1-4, with only Commissioner Brooks assenting. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to approve the application as submitted, limiting the height to 36', and adjusting the front yard setback in Condition #2. Commissioner Katherman seconded the motion, noting that exceptional circumstances were in effect, and to deny the 3rd story of the project would be denying the applicant enjoyment of substantial property rights. The motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Brooks dissenting solely because no early neighborhood notification had been done, although she stated she endorsed the actual project. Chairman McNulty noted that Colt Road was private, and also stated this was a beautiful project that will fit into the area, and although it was very large, due to the size of the lot and articulation of details, it would be compatible with the location and would be a significant asset to the area. D. VARIANCE NO. 276 Commissioner Brooks stated that 3348 Corinna Dr. she had been noticed on this item, and since it was within 300' of her residence, she was abstaining from hearing this application. Associate Planner John Leung presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow construction of a bedroom and garage remodel encroaching 8 ft, into the 20 ft. front setback. Staff's recommendation is to deny the variance. Chairman McNulty acknowledged receipt of seven letters from residents objecting to the project. The public hearing was opened. Alan Greenberg, 3348 Corinna Dr., applicant, stated he needed to expand his house due to the size of his family, and felt that a one-story expansion was more in conformance with the neighborhood. He also stated that the off-street parking would not be affected, and that a backyard addition would use up most of his yard and be unsightly to his rear neighbor, and he asked the Commission to approve the application. Larry Clark, 3354 Corinna Dr., next-door neighbor to the applicant, spoke in support of the application, stating there was neighborhood precedence for this type of addition, and that it would add value to the area. Dr. Rick Chavez, 3332 Deluna, also spoke in support of the application, stating it would add value to and beautify the neighborhood. Page 6 ! 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 1990 Maurice Keller, 3139 Dianora, objected to the proposed addition on the basis of cumulative impact. C. L. Wetzel, 3237 Deluna, also objected to the application based on the staff recommendations, especially the "boxy" design and direct garage access, as well as a potential cumulative impact. Sheila Wetzel, 3237 Deluna, objected to the variance on the grounds of potential cumulative impact. Margaret Compher, 3212 Dianora, spoke in opposition to the application, also citing potential cumulative impact. Barbara Kennard, 3402 Deluna, spoke against the variance, citing lack of neighborhood compatibility, and felt the cumulative impact would be negative. Edward Johnson, 3320 Deluna, objected to the project, and presented a signed petition to that effect. The public hearing was closed, but then reopened to allow the applicant a rebuttal. Alan Greenberg, 3348 Corinna, stated that his addition was not a huge structure, and that none of the speakers even lived on his street, nor were any of them in need of a larger house to accommodate a growing family. Mr. Greenberg noted that his immediate neighbors approved of the plans, and that he felt they were in conformance with the neighborhood. The public hearing was then closed. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he liked the project but had trouble making the findings. Commissioner Von Hagen stated he could not find any exceptional circumstances to warrant the variance, and could not support it because it was contrary to the open space policy of the general plan. Commissioner Katherman also stated he could not find for exceptional circumstances, and felt there was potential cumulative impact. Mr. Katherman also felt the direct garage access was a problem, but he could support building up to the setback. Chairman McNulty stated that he was not happy with the direct access garage, and that he could not make the findings to approve the variance with the heavy lot coverage. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to deny the variance, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded, and the motion passed 4-0 with Commissioner Brooks abstaining. Page 7 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 1990 E. CODE AMENDMENT 29 Planning Administrator Curtis REVIEW -- FENCES Williams presented the staff WALLS AND HEDGES report regarding the recommendation to direct staff to incorporate minor language changes into the Consultant revision to the Development Code. The public hearing was opened. Richard Motz, 32413 Searaven Dr., objected to the 5% slope exemption, asked for clarification on some points, and suggested that when a reconstruction is done, that all walls be required to be brought into conformance. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Williams stated that the City Council had suggested that the 5% exemption was important to prevent the Environmental Services Department from having to look at every application, and that the Council had suggested it be reviewed for effectiveness after it had been in place for a while. Chairman McNulty moved to accept the staff recommendation with no changes, Commissioner Von Hagen seconded, and the motion passed 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Due to the late hour, the new business was not heard. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience. STAFF REPORTS Director Benard presented the Commission with copies of the supplemental EIR for grading for the Forrestal tract, as well as a copy of a letter from the Monaghan Company offering a tour of the site prior to the December 11 meeting. Mr. Benard suggested that a quorum attend. Mr. Williams presented a memo regarding the January 14 and 28 meetings and asked if Ladera Linda was an acceptable location, and the Commission agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:45pm Page 8