Loading...
PC MINS 19920415MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 15, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Katherman at 7:10 p.m. at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds and Chairman Katherman, Absent: Commissioner Byrd Also present were Acting Director of Environmental Services Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas, Donna Jerex and Kim Klopfenstein. III. FLAG SALUTE The salute to the flag was led by Gary Amo from the Peninsula News. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS Acting Director Petru reported that there were two items of communication related to Items VI "All and VI "B" on the agenda that had been distributed to the Commission. The agenda was reviewed and altered by the Commission. Continued Business Item VII "All would be heard first after the Consent Calendar. Chairman Katherman stated that Staff had provided the Commission with a copy of the final Subregion 7 and 8 resolutions and suggested that they be agendized for the next meeting as a Consent Calendar so the documents could be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the suggestion and Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Acting Director Petru suggested that the above mentioned item be agendized as a New Business item as opposed to a consent Calendar item. Chairman Katherman agreed that it was a reasonable suggestion. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1992 IV. COMMISSION REPORTS - CON'T. Chairman Katherman asked staff about the agenda for the meeting of April 28. The Workshop/Retreat for the Planning Commission and Staff was brought up for discussion. A subcommittee to organize the workshop was also suggested and volunteers were requested. Chairman Katherman volunteered himself. Chairman Katherman brought up another item to be discussed at the next meeting concerning the MSI Fee Study. He stated that he was going to suggest that the Planning Commission review and comment on the Study at the Mayor's Breakfast on April 20, 1992. Commissioner Hayes suggested the idea of putting parking meters on the public streets in the coastal zone as a method to help raise revenues for the City. V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of March 10, 1992. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes as corrected and Commission Hayes seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation. VI. CONTINUED BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 58 -REVISION "All 6504 VIA BARON Assistant Planner Donna Jerex presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to revise the Conditional Use Permit to allow a rear yard deck. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request, thereby amending the Conditional Use Permit to allow Models A, C and D, subject to conditions of approval. Chairman Katherman asked if there were any speakers on this item. Ilse Oetiker, 6504 Via Baron, applicant, explained that she and Margot Vogel, President of the Homeowner's Assoc., conducted a poll to see if the homeowners support deck additions. There are 52 homeowners in the Vista Pacific tract. of these, 42 were in favor of the -- additions and 10 could not be reached. Nagy Jacob, 6510 Via Baron, spoke in favor of the request for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Jacob also stated his concerns regarding the conditions of approval. Fq Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1992 Myra Ghabriel, 6512 via Baron, spoke in favor for balconies. Assistant Planner Jerex addressed Mr. Jacob's concerns regarding Condition I and regarding the height of the balconies. Condition 1 was changed so that the balconies can be 12 feet in height, plus the handrail (which can be a maximum of 4 feet, according to UBC standards in effect at the time the application is made). Acting Director Petru suggested that Condition 2 be amended to say that the finish and color of the flooring and rails of each balcony shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Environmental Services. The Commission agreed to amend Condition 1 and condition 2 as suggested by Staff. Assistant Planner Jerex suggested that Condition 4 be removed because Condition 3 would be more limiting than Condition 4. Commissioner Mowlds requested to include the condition that prevents placing a patio cover over the balcony additions. Acting Director Petru agreed with Commissioner mowlds that it would be appropriate to include such a condition. Commissioner Clark moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 58,, Revision "A",, subject to revised conditions of approval. Commissioner Lorenzen seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Katherman stated that the conditions of approval would be amended during the recess and that the resolution would be signed that evening. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE NO. 313, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1591 -APPEAL, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 431 -APPEAL 6000 Woodfern Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request s to approve Variance #313 and overturn the Acting Director's denial of Grading Permit No. 1591 and Minor Exception Permit No. 431 -Appeal. Staff's recommendation is to approve only the downslope height portion of Variance No. 313, and deny the appeals of Grading No. 1519 and Minor Exception Permit No. 431. Acting Director Petru made a comment that the only access to the street is through Palos Verdes Estates and that any rules that the neighboring city would KI Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1992 have about truck size restrictions on the public streets would also apply to the subject property. The public hearing was opened. Russ Barto, 3 Malaga Cove Plaza, project architect, explained that Options A and B include the same mitigation measures with respect to the retaining walls of the garage. He felt that if the Commission favored an additional reduction in grading is necessary, that the wall could be moved 8 feet and that it would reduce the grading by roughly another 84 to 85 cubic yards. With respect to the gate, Mr. Barto explained that it would be installed at the property line for security reasons because there are no windows in the front of the house. Sue Song, 6000 Woodfern Drive, applicant's daughter, stated she felt that they were good neighbors to allow their neighbor to trim the trees on their property to avoid view impairment. Bruce Pevney, 6011 Woodfern Drive, stated he feels the two proposals seem to be a bit redundant. He feels that a sincere effort is not being made on the part of the applicants and their architect. He explained that when someone takes an existing structure and begins to make changes as opposed to designing a house from the ground up, it has a large impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Pevney stated that he hasn't found the Song's to be good neighbors. He disagrees strongly with the fact that a house would be more than twice the size of any other home in the immediate neighborhood. Michael Pickett, 6015 Via Sonoma, objects to the aesthetics of the proposed project and suggested that the addition be redesigned to be compatible with the existing structures of the neighborhood. However, he stated that he is not opposed to the Song's improving their property. He stated that he realized the difficulties involved and that there's a lot of compromise that needs to taken into consideration. He is opposed to the apparent lack of concern on the part of the applicants that the addition affects the neighbor's views and property values. Mr. Pickett stated that he strongly disagrees with the idea of painting the existing roof to match the addition. Commissioner Mowlds moved to close the public hearing and Commissioner Alberio seconded the motion. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mowlds spoke concerning the issue of the gate and explained that he felt the proposed cut for the garage was not "grading", but should be considered as excavation. Chairman Katherman stated that he felt that the house is too large for the 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1992 property. Commissioner Mowlds moved to deny the Minor Exception Permit No. 431 Appeal concerning the fence and gate. Commissioner Hayes seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Commissioner Mowlds moved to approve the portion of Variance No. 313 to allow an overall height for 36'-5" for the staff recommendation and to allow a balcony to encroach in the rear yard setback, although it was staff's recommendation to deny it. Commissioner Hayes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mowlds moved to grant the Grading Permit for 500 cubic yards for excavation. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Assistant Planner de Freitas spoke regarding redesign issues and stated that staff would support grading that would only be necessary, to accommodate the three -car garage. Chairman Katherman suggested that the architect and staff come up with some uniform roof covering ideas so that it is consistent so that a resolution can be finalized at the next meeting. Commissioner Mowlds made a substitute motion to approve Option 4 with the modifications of solar and requiring roof materials to match the existing..Commissioner Clark seconded the motion, which passed 4-2. Ms. Song stated that she would grant Mr Pickett permission to remove the tree on the subject property at his own expense. Mr. Pickett stated that he would be willing to pay for the removal of the tree if the solar panels were relocated or screened from view. Acting Director Petru stated that it was staff's recommendation that the removal of the tree be discussed privately between the two parties. Chairman Katherman stated that a resolution would come back as a Consent Calendar item at the next meeting of the Commission, which would be April 28, 1992. Acting Director Petru suggested that this item come back as a Continued Business item since staff will be working with the architect to redesign certain portions of the project, as directed by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1992 Chairman Katherman agreed to Acting Director Petru's suggestion. RECESS AND RECONVENE A 10 -minutes break was called at 9:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT'D) B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 726 -APPEAL 13 HEADLAND DRIVE Assitant Planner Kim Klopfenstein presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to overturn the Acting Director's approval of Height Variation No. 726 to allow a second story addition. Staff recommends denial of the appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Marks at 7 Headland, thereby, approving the project. The applicant's have proposed a new three -car garage (635 square feet) and a first story addition in the rear property (971.5 square feet). The project also includes a second story addition and balcony (1,420 square feet) which would be located above the garage. The appellant's expressed concern about the loss of the view of Mt. Baldy. Staff explained that the Development Code allows structures up to 16' in height as a minimum development right and that any view of that was blocked by construction to 16 feet in height is not considered to be a protected view. However, although the view of Mt. Baldy is above 16 feet, the Code does not define mountain views as a protected view. The public hearing was opened. Stan Denis, Esq. 707 Torrance Blvd., Redondo Beach, representing the appellants, presented a folder to each member of the Commission which contained the floor plan of 7 Headland, a letter from the Marks' and a letter from Phyllis Reed, a local realtor. Mr. Denis disagreed with Staff concerning significant view impairment. He disagrees that Staff does not consider Mt. Baldy significant view. He stated that the house at 7 Headland Dr. was designed specifically for the Mt. Baldy view in 1979. Mr. Denis suggested that the Commission should view the proposed addition with this in mind and uphold the appeal. Acting Director Petru stated that mountains are not a protected portion of the view, as defined by the Development Code (as amended by Proposition M) only the view of the harbor or the city lights. Frank Dimeter, 1406 314 Renter Ave., _Los Angeles, architect for the applicants stated that the design of the home at 7 Headland Dr. was intended to keep a low profile of the building so that it 1.1 Planning commission Minutes April 15, 1992 complements the mountains and hillside view. The organization of the house from North to the South was designed to maximize privacy, which would be lost if the proposed structure is approved. Mr. Dimeter stated that the damage to the original design of the house would be irreparable. William Marks, 7 Headland Drive, stated that they have no objection to the 161 portion of the addition and explained that they purchased the house specifically for the views. He stated that they would have a view if the addition was moved an additional 8 feet to the northeast. He hoped that the Commission can understand and would consider their appeal. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Ave., #38, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, stated that within the limits of 16 feet it is possible to construct a two-story structure of that has a flat roof. However, it wouldn't be compatible with the design of this house. Mr. Wood explained that Mr. and Mrs. Lin should be allowed to construct this addition and improve their property. Chairman Katherman stated that the Code requires that the Commission to look at minimizing the view impairment, while allowing the applicants to improve their property. commissioner Mowlds moved to close the public hearing and Commissioner Alberio seconded the motion. with no objection, Chairman Katherman declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Clark stated that he had the benefit of being one of the drafters of Proposition M and the intent of that ordinance was not to protect distant mountain views. Mr. Clark stated the amount of view impairment is minuscule and that he had difficulty requiring a redesign the house to accommodate that portion of the view. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he felt all the view should be protected retained and that he is not in favor for granting the height variance, as currently proposed. Commissioner Alberio suggested that the architect and the applicant reduce the height of the proposed addition to mitigate the view impairment of Mt. Baldy. Commissioner Hayes stated that the appellants house was designed for the view. However, whether or not the view of Mr. Baldy is a significant view is questionable in her opinion. Commissioner Mowlds explained that while Proposition M does not protect distant mountain views, the Planning Commission can make 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1992 exceptions on a case by case basis. Chairman Katherman stated that the mountains are not considered as a protected view because they are distant and cannot be seen on most days anyway. However, he suggested this item be held over for two weeks to allow the applicant to explore options to minimize the view impairment. Commissioner Clark stated that after hearing the other Commissioner's thoughts, he would be willing to consider mitigation to minimize the impact to the mountain view. Jack Wood stated that to reduce the impact of the Mt. Baldy view, the heights of the garage and the second floor can be reduced internally. The garage could be lowered and a flat roof could be constructed. Acting Director Petru suggests that this item be postponed to the first meeting on May 12, 1992 as a Continued Business item. Commissioner Alberio moved to accept staff's suggestion and Commissioner Lorenzen seconded the motion. With out objection, the motion passed. C. EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT NO. 31 28533 SEAMOUNT Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein presented the staff report regarding the request to allow a deck to cantilever 6 feet over an extreme slope in the rear yard. Staff's recommendation is to approve the project with conditions. Richard Wong, of Blair Associates, representing the applicants, explained that the cantilever deck over 6 feet would be out of view from the street and would not result in any view impairment from adjacent properties. Chairman Alberio moved to accept staff's recommendation and Commission Lorenzen seconded the motion, which passed without objection. Chairman Katherman stated that the resolution would be signed that evening. D. VARIANCE NO. 325 28105 GOLDEN MEADOW Assistant Fabio de Freitas presented the staff report regarding the request to convert an indirect access driveway into a direct access garage which encroach 10 feet into the 20 foot front yard 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1992 setback and to construct a 6'-0" setback. Staff's recommendation public hearing was opened. 2 block wall within the front yard is to deny the request. The Gary Rinzler, 28105 Golden Meadow Drive, explained that this goal is to replace the black top driveway with a,yard area for his child and said that the Developmental Code includes provisions for properties with exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Rinzler strongly agreed that the General Plan promotes development that preserves and enhances the community's quality living environment and fees that the requested changes will accomplish these goals. Commissioner Hayes asked why this variance was not requested at the time that Mr. Rinzler was processing his height variation request. Mr. Rinzler stated that at the time he was told that it was against Code. Approximately nine months later learned from Assistant Planner de Freitas that staff would not support such a request since it was contrary to the Code and that it was staff's job to support Development Code, unless there were any unusual physical constraints on the property. Commissioner Mowlds moved to close the public hearings and Commissioner Hayes seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. Chairman Katherman mentioned that there are other direct driveways in the area and suggested a motion to allow a 3 1/2 foot high block wall with wrought iron above as opposed to a 6 foot solid wall and pilasters to protect the applicant's child, provide some protection from runaway cars and allow light and air to pass through the fence. Commissioner Hayes moved to deny the request and Commissioner Alberio seconded the motion. The motion was made and supported by Commissioners Alberio and Mowlds because it was felt that the resulting 10 foot driveway (leading to the garage) would not allow vehicles to be parked on the driveway and allow safe passage for pedestrians along the sidewalk. It was also felt, that, along with the previously approved curb cut, the new driveway would not be in keeping with the existing direct access driveways in the area.A roll call was taken and it was a tie vote (3-3) with Katherman, Lorenzen and Clark dissenting. Commissioner Clark proposed an alternative motion to grant the request with conditions prohibiting a third driveway on the southside of the garage and that the solid wall be 3 1/2 feet in 0 Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1992 height with wrought iron above up to 6 feet and to be setback additional 2 feet from the front of the garage. It was commissioner Clark's opinion (and supported by Commissioner Lorenzen and Chairman Katherman) that there were exceptional conditions relative to this property, and that the applicant was attempting to bring his property up to 1990's standards. Commissioner Clark also felt that the proposal would not introduce a design that was not already found throughout the area. Commissioner Lorenzen seconded the motion. It was a tie vote (3-3) with Hayes, Mowlds and Alberio dissenting. commissioner Mowlds moved to continue the item until April 28, 1992 to allow Commissioner Byrd the opportunity to vote on the motion and Commissioner Alberio seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Katherman stated the item be agendized as a Continued Business item but would be heard first on the agenda. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Katherman stated that there is no items of New Business. IX. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, read a letter written by John P. Sharkey, to Mr. Schoenfield who is the Secretary of the Lunada Point Homeowner's Association, regarding Subregion 1 (HMDI). The letter indicates that appeal does not indicate or imply the inclusion of the Lunada Pointe Homeowner's Association in any way. X. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hayes moved to adjourn the meeting until April 28, 1992 and Commissioner Lorenzen seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. EE