Loading...
PC MINS 19920428711' I cl-&, M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 28, 1992 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:15 PM by Chairman Katherman at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Byrd, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds and Chairman Katherman. Absent: None. Also present were: City Manager Paul Bussey; Director of Environ- mental Services Dudley Onderdonk; Senior Planner Carolynn Petru; Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas; Assistant Planner Paul Espe; Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein; and Associate Planner Terry Silverman. III. FLAG SALUTE City Manager Bussey led in the salute to the flag. At this time City Manager Bussey and the Commission wel- comed new Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk. City Manager Bussey and the Commission thanked Carolynn Petru for her exceptional efforts as Acting Director of Environ- mental Services. Commissioner Alberio read aloud a letter com- mending Carolynn Petru for her service. 4/28/92 IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Staff 0 Upon a recommendation from staff, it was agreed that the Commission tour of the Salvation Army site will tentatively be re -scheduled for June 6, 1992, 1:00 PM. Salvation Army repre- sentative Major Gibson expressed his agreement with that date. B. Commission 0 Discussion of the MSI Study was delayed until later in the meeting (See Page 13). 0 The idea of a Planning Commission and staff workshop/retreat was discussed. 0 Various Commissioners related input about the recent Planning Commissioners' Institute sponsored by the League of California Cities. V. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, for the approval of the Consent Calendar as follows: 0 Minutes of February 11, 1992 0 Minutes of February 25, 1992 There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Kather- man. Continued Business Item A was considered at this time... VARIANCE NO. 313, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1591 - APPEAL, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 431 - APPEAL, MR. & MRS. CHUO SONG, 6000 WOODFERN DRIVE Commissioner Byrd explained his intent to abstain from con- sideration of the request in that he was absent from and has not listened to the audio tape of previous discussion on the project. 4/28/92 2 Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the staff report, with the recommendation for approval as conditioned. He related the applicants' agreement with recommended Conditions of Approval and noted that the public hearing was closed at a previous meet- ing. Mr. Mike Pickett, 5015 Via Sonoma, came forward to voice his support of the project as conditioned. It was noted that a gated fence will not be included in the project. The Commission suggested that Condition 8 be modified to in- clude, the specific type of roofing material to be utilized and that Condition 9 be modified to include that the solar panels shall be relocated onto the roof of the addition. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved for the approval of Variance No. 313, and Grading Permit No. 1591, including Condi- tions of Approval as modified above, and denial of Manor Excep- tion Permit No. 431. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Al- berio and passed by unanimous oral vote, with Commissioner Byrd abstaining. .yy y l T ? New Business Item A was considered at this time... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 - REVISION "E" SHAPELL INDUSTRIES, TRACT NO. 33206 Senior Planner Petru presented the staff report, with the recommendation for approval as conditioned. She confirmed that no complaints about the maintenance of the property have been received over the last year and that the recommended Conditions of Approval require that the vacant lot shall continue to be maintained by the developer until homes are constructed on them. The Commission discussed the importance of mitigating dust on the subject property. The Commission suggested that Condi- tions 1 and 2 include that construction shall commence no later than... Representing Shapell Industries was Mr. Alan Cummins, 5141 Via Samuel, Yorba Linda. He related his agreement with the recommended Conditions of Approval and expressed his willingness to work with the homeowners' association to ensure that dust is controlled. 4/28/92 3 MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved for the approval of Condi- tional Use Permit No. 31, Revision "-E," including recommended Conditions of Approval as modified above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Katherman. At this time, discussion returned to regular agenda order... VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 327, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1612, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 109, GENE SUMMERS, 108 SPINDRIFT Assistant Planner Espe presented the staff report with the recommendation that discussion of the item be tabled until the City Geologist has an opportunity to review the recently sub- mitted geology report. Senior Planner Petru explained staff's understanding that the Commission previously recommended conceptual approval by the City Geologist. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Senior Building Inspector Winston Ward explained that, at this time, approval cannot be recommended because of insufficient information but that the project can be approved in concept. He related the City's uncertainty as to whether the project is feasible from an economic standpoint and confirmed that no base- ments have been constructed in the area recently. Project Engineer Gary Wynn of David Breiholz & Co., 1852 Lomita Boulevard, Lomita, explained that the City Geologist (A.G.I.) has granted conceptual geologic approval and that out- standing information pertains to soil issues. He related his feeling that the economic feasibility of the project should not be of concern to the City. The Commission emphasized the importance of safety and, therefore, the need for complete geological information prior to making a decision on the project. The Commission expressed con- cern that an approval of the project could have the potential for setting a precedent for the construction of basements in the area seaward of the Coastal Setback Line. 4/28/92 4 Senior Planner Petru clarified that closed at a previous meeting and that this ing which was re -noticed. 0 the public hearing was is a new public hear - Mrs. Noel Summers, 108 Spindrift, stated her appreciation of the Commission's attention to geologic safety. Without further discussion, the following motion was of- fered. MOTION: Commissioner Byrd moved to continue consideration of Variance No. 327, Grading Permit No. 1612, and Coastal Permit No. 109 to May 26, 1992. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayes and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chair- man Katherman. B. VARIANCE NO. 325, DR. GARY RINZLER, 28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DRIVE Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the staff report with the recommendation for denial. He pointed out that the request no longer includes a six foot wall within the front yard setback. Noting that he listened to the tape of the previous Planning Commission hearing on the project, Commissioner Byrd related his intent to participate in this hearing. Upon a request from the Commission, Assistant Planner de Freitas provided background information about the request. He clarified that the project was conditioned so that the upper level deck shall not extend beyond the back of the existing house, even though City Council minutes do not reflect a discus- sion to that effect. He also explained that Minor Exception and Extreme Slope Permit applications for the subject property were submitted in August, 1990. Senior Planner Petru explained that the project was condi- tioned to require that the second -story railing shall extend no further out from the face of the building line below. Applicant Gary Rinzler, 28105 Golden Meadow Drive, called attention to his withdrawal of the request for a six foot wall within the front yard setback. Mr. Rinzler indicated that he is unaware of any Minor Exception and Extreme Slope Permit applica- tions submitted for the subject property. He explained: his family's need for a safe play yard; his opinion that the extraor- dinary circumstances of the property would be criteria for al- lowing an exception to the Code; his efforts to achieve neighbor - 4/28/92 hood compatibility; and his understanding that no neighboring property owners have objected to the request. Stating that the proposed project would improve the ap- pearance of Rinzler's residence, Mr. Robert Maltby, 7027 Brook - ford Drive, voiced his support of the project. The Commission discussed: the piece -meal evolution of modifications to the subject property; the idea that the side yard which is currently used for storage could be used as a play area; and that an approval of the project could potentially set a precedence in the neighborhood. There being no further public input, the following motion was offered. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commis- sioner Byrd, to close the public hearing. There being no objec- tion, it was so ordered by Chairman Katherman. The Commission discussed the historical evolution of modifications to the subject property and whether or not the driveway should remain in its existing form. Noting the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the sub- ject property, those Commissioners supporting the project voiced their opinions that it would be aesthetically appealing and similar to other properties in the neighborhood. Commissioners objecting to the project discussed: their concern over aesthetics; possible alternative play yard locations; ftft4 their feelings that the request resulted from the many previous modifications to the subject property*)) ,,-'Assist - ant Planner de Freitas confirmed that the request for a six foot wall within the front yard setback was withdrawn and, with the removal of the indirect access driveway, additional open space would be created with the project. There being no further discussion, the following motions were offered. MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved for the approval of Variance No. 325, including Conditions of Approval as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen and defeated by the following 3-4 roll call vote: +Ine- pro?oseA A-N\ere weoU be - 4/28/92 6 AYES: Commissioners Clark, Lorenzen and Chairman Katherman. NOES: Commissioners Alberio, Byrd, Hayes and Mowlds. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved for the denial of Variance No. 325 as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayes and passed by the following 4-3 vote: AYES: Commissioners Alberio, Byrd, Hayes and Mowlds. NOES: Commissioners Clark, Lorenzen and Chairman Katherman. Appeal rights were noted. At 9:00 PM there was a recess until 9:15 PM when the meeting reconvened in regular agenda order. C. VARIANCE NO. 331, ROGER AND ANTONETTE RIZZI, 2102 TOSCANINI Associate Planner Silverman presented the staff report with the recommendation for approval as conditioned. She noted that the portion of the wall indicated for removal by staff has not yet been constructed and revisions to the plans are, therefore, required. Because he resides within 300 feet of the subject property and is personally acquainted with the applicants, Commissioner Alberio abstained from consideration of the project. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Reading aloud from written material (dated April 28, 1992) which he distributed to the Commission, Applicant Roger Rizzi, 2102 Toscanini, provided background information on and explained the reasoning behind the request. He related his understanding that the project would be similar to others in the neighborhood, noted a petition signed by approximately forty-two neighbors in support of the project; and, distributing pertinent photos, Mr. 4/28/92 7 Rizzi related his understanding that the side yard in question is not visible from the property of the objecting resident to the rear. The Commission discussed possible alternatives to the request. Mr. Rizzi stressed his desire for security and privacy. Assistant Planner Silverman explained that vegetation is proposed to mitigate the wall's visual impact from the back of the house to the rear property line. Mr. Jeff Verner, 2133 Rockinghorse Road, expressed his ob- jection to the height of the wall; noted a petition signed by residents opposed to the project; questioned whether the wall is safe and whether it complies with the Development Code; and of- fered his opinion that the project is not similar to others in the neighborhood. MOTION: Commissioner Lorenzen moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mowlds and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Kather- man. The Commission discussed: the extreme height of the exist- ing wall along the street side setback and the related issue of potential traffic visibility difficulties; neighborhood compatibility; and possible alternative designs, such as lower- ing the height of the existing wall which would lessen its im- pact. Mrs. Rizzi came forward to clarify that the appearance of the wall would be softened with lattice work and vegetation. She emphasized the importance of the wall for security reasons. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved that the height of the existing wall be lowered along the side of the structure so that it matches the wall at the pool level and that the freestanding portion of the wall shall be set back 2'6" from the retaining wall. Discussion continued with the Commission determining that Variance No. 331 should be continued for the applicant to discuss possible alternative designs which would lessen impact with staff and neighboring residents. Commissioner Mowlds withdrew the above motion. 4/28/92 8 C • MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue Variance No. 331 to May 12, 1992. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Byrd and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Katherman. D. VARIANCE NO. 328, MR. PAUL BESSE, 5349 MANITOWAC The Commission agreed to waive the presentation of the staff report. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Applicant Paul Besse, 5349 Manitowac Drive, presented a petition signed by residents in support of the project. There being no further discussion, the following motions were offered. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to close the public hearing. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chair. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved for the approval of Variance No. 328. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mowlds and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Katherman. Senior Planner Petru clarified that a covenant to protect views would not be required for this permit since no habitable space was being added to the residence. The Commission discussed that the wall was built prior to the incorporation of the City and that the height of the wall was increased with a brick trim cap in 1991. Senior Planner Petru supplied input with regard to how the City deals with projects constructed prior to the City's incorporation. E. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 730 - APPEAL, DOUGLAS TROWBRIDGE, 5333 ROLLINGRIDGE ROAD (APPELLANT) AND BARBARA AND PAUL WEBER, 3502 VIA CAMPESINA (APPLICANT) Assistant Planner Espe provided the staff report with the recommendation to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's conditional approval of the request for the second - story addition. He clarified that a covenant to protect views would not be required since the applicants chose to perform the prior vegetation analysis. 4/28/92 9 Senior Planner Petru explained City Council's policy that either a vegetation analysis be performed or a view protection covenant be required with the Director's approval of Height Variations. She further explained that the applicant chose a vegetation analysis and staff determined that tree lacing would adequately address near -view issues. The Commission discussed that the appellant's concerns ap- pear to center around view impairment resulting from vegetation and questioned whether the View Restoration Committee or the Planning Commission would have jurisdiction in this matter. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Appellant Douglas Trowbridge, 5333 Rolling Ridge Road, ex- plained his main concern over view impairment resulting from trees which, he pointed out, are not currently maintained to his satisfaction. He voiced his preference for a covenant running with the land to limit the vegetation height to a maximum of 16 feet. Mr. Trowbridge stated his concern over potential loss of privacy and related his understanding that the project would not be in compliance with the CC&Rs. An extensive Commission discussion of procedures for dealing with the on-going problem of growing vegetation, included related Code requirements and Prop M (which is currently in suspension due to litigation). Senior Planner Petru confirmed that condi- tions placed on a Height Variation run with the land; and com- mented on the Commission's ability to require a covenant pertain- ing to vegetation. Applicant Barbara Weber, 3502 Via Campesina, distributed a waiver of the CC&Rs for a second -story addition to her house. She stated her willingness to maintain her trees as needed. Applicant Rocky Weber, 3502 Via Campesina, reminded those present of staff's view analysis determination that tree lacing would adequately address near -view issues. He asked for clarification with regard to City requirements pertaining to tree maintenance costs. Senior Planner Petru clarified that, if a View Restoration Permit is granted, the first tree trimming would be paid for by the party requesting the permit, but the property owner with the trees would be required to maintain the view thereafter. 4/28/92 10 Project Architect Miles Pritzkat of Edward Beall & As- sociates, 23727 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, related his will- ingness to answer questions about the architecture of the project. With no further public input, the following motion was of- fered. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen and, there being no objection, it was so ordered. The Commission discussed the importance of balancing the rights of both property owners and whether the Code should be relied upon or a covenant should be required for the maintenance of the trees. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved for the denial of the appeal of Height Variation No. 730, thereby upholding the Director's approval of Height Variation No. 730, including Condi- tions of Approval recommended by staff and modifying Condition 1 to require a covenant guaranteeing the maintenance of the applicants' trees on a basis to be determined by staff, to be ap- proved by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Commis- sioner Mowlds and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chair. Senior Planner Petru offered that the resolution with the revised wording will be returned for Commission review on May 12, 1992. Assistant Planner Espe asked that any written comments pertaining to the covenant be provided to staff prior to that date. At 11:00 PM there was a recess until 11:10 PM when the meet- ing reconvened in regular agenda order. VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 313, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1591 - APPEAL, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 431 - APPEAL, MR. & MRS. CHUG SONG, 6000 WOODFERN DRIVE Discussed earlier in the meeting (See Page 2). 4/28/92 B. RULES OF PROCEDURE - PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved to continue discussion of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure to the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 1992. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen and defeated by a 2-5 oral vote. The Commission modified the Rules of Procedure. Senior Planner Petru noted that the City Attorney has reviewed them for compliance with the Brown Act and that, following the City Attorney's review of modifications made this evening, the docu- ment will be returned for Commission adoption on May 12, 1992. After discussion of the Planning Commission Rules of Proce- dures was concluded, Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, came forward to demand her right to speak. Because of rude comments made by Ms. Larue, the Commission asked that she submit her thoughts in writing. Noting that discussion of the Rules and Procedures was not advertised as a public hearing, the Commission agreed that Ms. Larue would not be allowed to speak. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 - REVISION "E," SHAPELL INDUSTRIES, TRACT NO. 33206 Considered earlier in the meeting (See Page 3). B. REVIEW OF THE FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBREGIONS 7 AND 8 Commissioner Byrd pointed out that, because he resides tear the subject property, he has not participated in previous Planning Commission discussions of the project. However, it was agreed that he could offer input about the per- tinent resolutions but that he would not vote on any related mo- tions. Commission discussion of the project was as follows: Resolution No. 92-27 The Commission discussed whether wording about priority tee times, green fees and and resident access to the golf club should be included as Conditions of Approval or recommended to City Council under separate cover. The Commission agreed to let the 4/28/92 12 recommended Conditions of approval stand as approved. The Com- mission agreed that it was their intent that _ no roof - mounted mechanical equipment, vents or ducts shall be permitted in the development. Resolution No. 92-26 The Commission asked that staff check the accuracy of infor- mation concerning the ratio of house and lot sizes included in the Conditions of Approval. Resolution No. 92-25 The Commission discussed that a project biologist shall be present during all rough grading operations. Senior Planner Petru confirmed that staff has checked the Conditions of Approval for all of the lettered trails for accuracy. Resolution No. 92-24 Upon a request from the Commission, Senior Planner Petru ex- plained the City's ability to recover the full cost of fees for the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Commission discussed the idea of utilizing Quimby Fees for the development of two additional paddle tennis courts at Ladera Linda Community Center. Senior Planner Petru advised that in -lieu fees are pooled*the money allocated to various projects as prioritized in the Parks Master Plan. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved to recommend to City Council that, due to the increased demand to recreational facilities generated by the development of Subregions 7 and 8, the developer be required to build two additional paddle tennis courts at Ladera Linda Community Center and that the developer be given credit for the construction against Quimby Fees. The mo- tion was seconded by Commissioner Hayes and, there being no ob- jection, it was so ordered by Chairman Katherman with Commis- sioner Byrd abstaining. 4/28/92 13 At this time, the Commission discussed the MSI Study... The Commission discussed that development fees should be greater than City costs so that additional money can be placed in a trust account to cover the highs and lows in the development process cycle. Senior Planner Petru noted that State Law prevents the City from charging more than the cost to provide service. The idea of charging severe penalties for after -the -fact applications was discussed. Chairman Katherman asked that Com- missioner comments and be submitted ten days prior to City Coun- cil consideration of the MSI Study, tentatively scheduled for May 18, 1992. IX. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE None. At this time, Chairman Katherman stated his displeasure with comments made by Ms. Lois Larue during the Commission's discus- sion of the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures. X. ADJOURNMENT At 12:45 AM the meeting was formally adjourned to May 12, 1992, 7:00 PM. 4/28/92 14