Loading...
PC MINS 19920623MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 23, 1992 7/a.8/ 9'a. Md�wuhaw The meeting was called to order by Chairman Katherman at 7:07 p.m. at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. PRESENT Commissioners Alberio, Byrd, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds, Chairman Katherman ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, and Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas, Paul Espe and Donna Jerex. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Staff Director Onderdonk reminded Commissioners and the public of the special meeting on the Housing Element of the General Plan to be held at 7:00 p.m. on June 30, 1992. No comments on the most recent draft have been received to date. Permission has been received from the City Council to have special legal counsel available that night. Regarding the proposed joint meeting with the City Council, it was agreed that the meeting will be held at 5:30 p.m. on July 7, 1992. Director Onderdonk noted that the City Council has requested that agenda items for discussion include broad policy issues rather than specific items; however, the Commissioners may refer specific items to the Chairman to serve as examples. The Director advised that Staff is working to correct the backlog of Planning Commission minutes. Commenting that the weekly status reports are very helpful, Commissioner Clark inquired regarding the status of the Marymount College plans for expansion. Director Onderdonk advised that the college has acquired almost four acres to the west of the campus but there are no current plans for expansion. Commissioner Clark noted that there is a great deal of sensitivity in the community concerning the Marymount enrollmentand C-ommonl* Y. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 B. Commission Chairman Katherman announced that the retreat for Commissioners and Staff will be held at 11:30 a.m. on July 18 at the Cabrillo Beach Community Room. There will be a two-hour boat tour of the harbor. This is primarily a social function and all expenses will be shared by the Commissioners. A brief report on the last City Council meeting was given by Commissioner Byrd. The backlog of Planning commission cases was discussed. Director Onderdonk noted that applications are incomplete on several of the outstanding cases, some of the larger cases have been postponed and many of them are staff level applications, so the backlog is not as great as it might appear. Commissioners decided not to omit any summer meetings, as had been previously suggested. Commissioner Mowlds requested information when it is available on the outcome of meetings between the Building Department and Planning on streamlining procedures. Director Onderdonk promised to report back to the Commission on the new Customer service program which is being planned to promote cooperation between the Building and Planning departments and to make operations more efficient and easily understood. Commissioner Byrd suggested that all minutes specifically state the rationale for decisions that are made, including both the majority and minority opinions. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of March 19, 1992 No corrections or additions were made. B. Minutes of March 24, 1992 Commissioners agreed that the discussion of Variance No. 317 on page 4 should be amended to read: The Commission noted that the garage was operable and functional as a garage when the applicant purchased the property and remained in that configuration until long after the neighborhood was incorporated into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 C. Minutes of June 6, 1992. No corrections or additions were made. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, that the minutes be approved as modified. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Katherman. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 335; Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc., 6237 Scotmist. Requested Action: Allow after -the -fact approval of a fence which exceeds the 4211 maximum height limit within the streetside setback. Recommendation: Approve the request, subject to conditions. Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report, adding that a letter has been received from the property owner directly across the street citing concerns regarding view impairment caused by the fence. Staff found that the fence would not cause a view impairment if it were lowered to 51 towards the back of the property and 61 towards the front of the property. The applicant has indicated agreement with the staff recommendation. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Stewart, Executive Home Coordinator for Toyota Motor Sales, stated their willingness to work with the Commission and neighbors to lower the height of the fence and use landscaping as needed. He said they chose not to construct an addition to the block wall because of safety considerations as well as cost. They considered wrought iron or vegetation screening but felt the fence would fit into the neighborhood and provide the privacy and security they need. Mr. and Mrs. George Gelb, 28409 Covecrest Drive, requested denial of the variance based on obstruction of their view and visual impact related to the size and expanse of the fence. They said they could accept a fence height not to exceed the staff recommendation, with some foliage which should never be allowed to exceed the height of the fence. Mrs. Gelb added they would prefer that the fence be eliminated. They objected to the "fort" appearance of the property. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to close the public hearing. Motion passed without objection. 3 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 1-0 A discussion was held of the aesthetics of the present fence and various alternative means of constructing the wall or fence. Associate Planner Silverman reported that her view analysis from the three properties that could be affected by the fence revealed that only the Gelb property is affected. Their view is at an angle across the property from the rear half of the fence; therefore, the Staff recommendation was made to reduce the height towards the back of the property to 51. She felt that the redwood fence will become less obtrusive as it ages and weathers, especially after appropriate foliage is added. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to approve the Staff recommendation and conditions, lowering the fence to 5' towards the rear of the property and 6' towards the front of the property, leaving the redwood as is, and adding landscaping. Motion passed 5-2, with Commissioners Byrd and Clark dissenting. The No votes centered around a preference for removal of the wood fence and provision of security through foliage and the existing slumpstone wall. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO 327 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1612 COASTAL PERMIT NO. 109; Gene Summers, 108 Spindrift. Requested Action: Allow 112.7 sf additional building footprint, conversion of 285 sf of additional storage area into a hobby room, conversion of 260 sf of crawl space into storage area and legalize a 100 sf laundry facility. Recommendation: Table this item, pending the review and approval of all geologic and geotechnical information. Senior Planner Petru reported that while a preliminary geology report has been submitted to the City Geologist, additional information is needed before approval and acceptance. Assistant Planner Espe stated the applicant has been notified that a 90 -day time extension will be needed and he has indicated agreement to submitting such a request. MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Commissioner Byrd, to table the item. There being no objection, Chairman Ratherman so ordered. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 737 - APPEAL; Mahesh A. Sejpal, 5724 Scotwood. Requested Action: Overturn the Director's denial of Height Variation No. 737 for an 888 square foot second story addition. Recommendation: Continue the item to July 14, 1992. There being no objection, chairman Katherman ordered continuance to July 14, 1992. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) B. VARIANCE NO. 330, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1628; Pacifica Landscape & Design (for Joe and Kim Spirito), 3655 Hightide Drive. Requested Action: Allow a 416 square foot deck to be built into an extreme slope along the eastern side yard of the house. Recommendation: Continue the item and direct the applicant to redesign the project as directed by the Planning Commission. Assistant Planner Donna Jerex presented the Staff Report, explaining that Staff feels the magnitude of the proposed deck is inconsistent with the General Plan's goals of preserving the natural hillsides and the Code's grading criteria regarding visual relationships with neighboring sites. She requested redesign specifications from the Commission. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Gary Gardner, Pacifica Landscape, testified that because of the long, deep lot with an extreme slope in the rear, the best way to create usable outdoor space is with the proposed deck. He said that the size of the structure will be mitigated with appropriate landscaping in front. The owners are agreeable to changing the design if necessary to make it acceptable to the Planning Commission. Applicant Joe Spirito stated that only three or four neighbors can see the structure from their property and none of them object to the project. He said they considered putting the deck in the back but it would have to be cantilevered over an easement. He indicated their willingness to work with staff on an alternate design, such as eliminating the stucco wall, but they felt the stucco wall would blend into the existing structure. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 Commissioners discussed ways to cut down the size of the deck, noting that it could not be moved back from the street more than a foot without eliminating the only possible entry from the house. MOTION: Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed without objection. MOTION: Commissioner Xowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, approval of the application for a deck with stucco wall to match the existing house, subject to conditions as recommended by staff, including a landscape plan. The motion passed without objection. Chairman Katherman suggested there be some kind of articulation to break up the solid mass of the stucco. The application and conditions will be returned for final approval by the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 30, 1992. RECESS AND RECONVENE - The meeting recessed for a break at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. C. VARIANCE NO. 334, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1635; Tom Gugliuzza, 3519 Seaglen Drive. Requested Action: Allow a balcony over the entry to encroach 3 feet into an existing 10 foot front yard setback; 3 second story balconies located in the rear yard, to project 4 feet over the extreme slope; a 3 foot extension of an existing first story deck located in the rear yard over said extreme slope; and 1 pilaster over 4211 in height to be located approximately 6 inches from the front property line. Recommendation: Approve the request, subject to conditions. The Staff Report was presented by Assistant Planner Espe, who noted that the Staff recommendation for approval was based on their determination that the proposed decks would not impair views from the adjacent property, and that all findings necessary to grant the Variance have been made. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Applicant Mr. Tom Gugliuzza testified that he has read the Staff Report and has no objection to the Staff recommendations. MOTION: Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner Clark, to close the public hearing. Motion passed without objection. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Byrd, to accept the Staff recommendation and approve Resolution No. 92-40. Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Hayes complimented the applicant on a very attractive addition to the property. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 168. VARIANCE NO. 329. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1625, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 635; Ascension Lutheran Church, 26231 Silver Spur Road. Requested Action: Allow a 3,207 square foot addition to existing facilities with a maximum proposed height of 27.5 feet for the structure and 30 feet for related appurtenances. Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Negative Declaration and approve the project, subject to conditions. Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report. Staff feels there will be no significant view impairment by the structure, which will have a maximum ridgeline height of 27.5 feet, but the cross will present a slight intrusion into the view from a property located in Rolling Hills Estates and the owner has indicated concern regarding this intrusion. Parking spaces will be increased from 73 to 92 but no significant traffic increase is expected. Ms. Silverman stated that a covenant will be required from the Church stating that activities will not be carried on at the same time in both the Sanctuary and the Fellowship Hall to avoid overuse of the parking lot. There is no on -street parking in the area. Based on Staff's determination that no significant adverse effect on the environment will be incurred, a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared. Commissioner Mowlds objected to the requirement that the Sanctuary and Fellowship Hall not be used at the same time. Ms. Silverman said that joint usage of the facilities can be allowed if there is no conflict with the parking. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Blair, 2785 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, spoke for the church members in attendance, as architect of the project. He reviewed the 12 -year history of the project, indicating that the church was required by the County Fire Department and California Water Service Company to provide sufficient water flow. This was accomplished at a cost to the congregation of $160,000, by running a 1211 main down Silver Spur and installing a second fire hydrant. The cost of this forced a downsizing of the planned church facilities, as 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 reflected in the final design under present consideration. He feels the new design blends into the community and is more aesthetically pleasing than the earlier one. An architectural rendering of the proposed building was displayed to Commissioners. Mr. Blair indicated his agreement with the Staff conditions. He said the congregation prefers the cross above the apex of the church but is willing to scale it down in size or eliminate the circle in the center if necessary. In reply to questions from the Commission, Mr. Blair indicated there will be shielded, ground level lighting in the parking lot; tandem parking is required to obtain the required number of spaces; and an open house was held on May 28, 1992 to which all neighbors were invited but it received light attendance. Mr. Bob Vitale, 17 Rollingwood Drive, stated he also represented three other residences on the street who have views toward the church property. He requested that flags be put up for a full outline of the building. He feels the building will not obstruct his view but objects to seeing the cross and asked that it be placed on the facade of the building instead of above the ridgeline. He invited Commissioners to visit his house to see the view. He said he would not object if the cross were to be 611 above the ridgeline, but 3011 is too much. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated she has a masters degree in history of art and architecture and has taught it at the college level for seven years. She expressed her displeasure with the church design and her outrage that the church had to pay $160,000 for a fire hydrant. She felt that the church should be allowed to have joint functions whenever they chose, and that a resident who did not wish to look at a cross should not have to. Mr. Albert Sorenson, 27681 Eastvale Road, spoke as Chairman of the Building Committee for Ascension Lutheran Church. He said the cross is a central symbol for the church and they would prefer the design as shown in the plans. Commissioner Clark asked about the possibility of moving the cross; Mr. Blair indicated it was important to place it at the entrance to the church but it could be lowered if necessary. He said it will not be lighted. Mr. Blair explained that the design for Craftsman Style, keeping the mass down and buildability were considerations in blends into the area very well. 8 the church utilizes the and flowing up the hill. Cost the design. He feels it PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 MOTION: Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to close the public hearing. Motion passed without objection. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Byrd, adoption of the Negative Declaration, leaving the cross as shown on the present plans, and eliminating the clause saying the church cannot hold multi -functions at the same time. motion passed 7-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS (Continued) C. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 741 - APPEAL, VARIANCE NO. 324; Mr. and Mrs. Dielmann, 28220 Golden Meadow Drive. Reauested Action: Deny the Director's decision to deny Height Variation No. 741, thereby approving Height Variation No. 741 and approve Variance No. 324, to allow a 61-611 encroachment of the proposed addition into the required 201-011 front yard setback. Recommendation: Deny Variance No. 324 and deny the appeal of Height Variation No. 741, thereby upholding the Acting Director's denial decision. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating the Staff's recommendation for denial is based on concerns that the project will cause significant and cumulative view impairment and does not adequately address the bulk and mass issues of neighborhood compatibility. Commissioners commented that the only change from the original plan appears to be that the addition is moved back, but made larger. Mr. Howard Dielmann (the applicant) testified that he has complied with the Planning commission's request to move the building back, and he feels the new design meets the concerns express by Commissioners. He said to build the structure over the middle of the house would be prohibitive in cost and would not allow the deck they want to build over the front of the house. Commissioner Byrd observed that the drawings indicate the proposed addition presents a massive appearance and does not provide neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Dielmann stated there is a house two streets away which is virtually identical to their proposed plans. Mr. William Cornwall, 29000 S. Western Avenue, Suite 209, spoke as Mr. Dielmann's architect and said he tried to address the concerns of the Commission with articulation, such as using a hip roof instead of Pi PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 a pitch roof. He explained that the project will involve demolishing the garage and putting up a new structure, which is much less expensive than building over an existing structure. He estimated that putting a second story on the house would at least double the cost. He stated that he feels it is architecturally more interesting to have the top floor cantilevered out than set back, and pointed out that it is only two feet out beyond the footprint of the existing garage. Mr. Fred Van Kirk, 1428 Via Castilla, PVE, stated he owns the property at 7025 Cherty and also spoke for the owner at 7017 Cherty, stating that their properties are the most affected by the addition. They object to the addition on the basis of view impairment and neighborhood compatibility. He stressed the importance of views and said he has trimmed and removed foliage on his property to protect his neighbors' views. He felt the residence at 28220 Golden Meadow could be expanded without adding a second story. He urged the Planning Commission to enforce the code and disapprove the addition. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to close the public hearing. After discussion, the motion was withdrawn. In their discussion Comrissioners agreed that the "pop-up" addition over the garage did not express neighborhood compatibility, felt the applicant should be provided with specific direction as to what is needed to have the project approved, and commented that while a second story addition to the residence would cost more, it would greatly enhance the value of the property. commissioner Clark pointed out that the applicant has the right to bring his house up to the standards of the 19901s, and that there are similar second story structures within the generalized neighborhood. Most Commissioners felt that significant view impairment would be eliminated with the proposed design. Chairman Katherman summarized the consensus of the Commission that they would like to see a redesign and would like the property re - flagged to enable evaluation of the view impact. He stressed to the applicant that there is no guarantee that anything will be approved, noting that all Commissioners agree a second story addition over the house would be preferable to the "pop-up" garage. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to continue the public hearing to August 11. Motion passed 7-0. In reply to Assistant Planner de Freitas' request for direction, Chairman Katherman said the scale is too large, there should be a setback on the upper level rather than on the lower, and if the deck 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 23, 1992 is desired it could be used as a feature to help articulate the front of the structure. NEW BUSINESS - None QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, asserted the Planning Commission is in violation of the Brown Act with its rule that prohibits requests to speak after completion of the remarks of the first speaker on an item, and in violation of the United States Constitution when it refuses to listen to people who are rude. She pointed out spelling errors in the minutes of March 19, 1992. Ms. Larue stated that architect William Cornwall is a magnificent artist and sculptor whose works appear on some of the important buildings in England. She then read from an article entitled "RPV City Council Upsets the Will of the People of California." Commissioner Mowlds pointed out that this section of the agenda is for questions on which the Planning Commission can act, and only regarding non -agenda items. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, Commissioner Clark seconded that the meeting be adjourned. At 11:52 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to 7:00 p.m., June 30, 1992. 11