Loading...
PC MINS 19920922r c�� 101 13�q'� MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Hayes, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: Commissioner Clark (Excused) Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planner Paul Espe, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas and Assistant Planner Donna Jerex. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. Prior to the meeting, Commissioner Clark informed Chairman Katherman via telephone that he was on a business trip to Santa Clara and would be unable to attend. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to grant Commissioner Clark an excused absence for this meeting. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Mowlds requested an excused absence from the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1992 and Vice Chairman Byrd requested an excused absence from the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1992. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director Onderdonk reminded the Commission of the landslide tour on Saturday, September 26, 1992, and that they are to meet at his office at 8:45 a.m. Director Onderdonk also reminded the Planning Commission that the City Council will be adopting the City budget for the fiscal year on September 29, 1992. Staff distributed draft copies of the Planning Commission Policy Recommendations to City Council for the Commission's final review and comment by October 13, 1992. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that the issue of second dwelling units be placed on the next meeting agenda, and that Staff provide a copy of Assistant Planner Jerex's report on Application Procedures for Second Units to the Commission for their review PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 before the meeting. Director Onderdonk suggested that Ms. Jerex give a brief presentation at the meeting, and stated that Staff would provide copies of Ms. Jerex's report before that time. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes, to place a new business item on the October 13, 1992 agenda to discuss State regulation, current covenants and a possible Development Code Amendment regarding second units. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Alberio presented his letter responding to Mr. Frank Stanton's letter to Staff and the Planning Commission. The letter concerned Mr. Stanton's appearance at the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1992, regarding the application for a car wash/smog check station at 28798 S. Western Avenue. The Commissioners agreed that the letter should indicate that the Planning commission concurred. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to send commissioner Alberiols letter to Mr. Stanton indicating that the Planning Commission agreed with Commissioner Alberiols statements in the letter. Motion passed 6-0. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of September 8, 1992: On Pages 1, 3, 10 and 12 correct or add the vote counts for the motions. Commissioner Mowlds requested, and the other Commissioners agreed, that when different points of view are made by individual speakers, that they be attributed to them individually and not lumped together. Director Onderdonk stated that future minutes would reflect this request. MOTION: vice chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio to approve Item A., Planning commission Minutes of September 8, 1992, as corrected. Motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Hayes abstaining since she was not present at that meeting. B. P.C. Resolution No. 92-57; approving Height Variation No. 741 - Appeal at 28220 Golden Meadow Drive. Chairman Katherman requested, and the Commission agreed, that P.C. Resolution No 92-57 specify that Planning Commission approval of this Variance is based on a specific set of corrected site development plans. 0j PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 In response to Vice Chairman Byrd's question, Planning Administrator Petru advised that Staff is seeking direction from City Council as to whether or not to allow discretionary permits to have a choice between a Landscape Covenant or a vegetation analysis. Current direction from city Council is that there is no choice, they must file a landscape covenant. Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman stated that for the last six months discretionary permit applicants have been given either option and they felt that, in order to keep the conditions of approval consistent, the choice should be allowed until clear direction is received from City Council. C. P.C. Resolution No. 92-58 ; denying Variance No. 342 at 40 Santa Catalina. D. P.C. Resolution No. 92-59; approving Conditional Use Permit No. 171 at 30057 Matisse Drive. MOTION: Moved by Vice Chairman Byrd, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve Item B., P.C. Resolution No. 92-57; approving Height Variation No. 741 - Appeal, with the added condition that the approval be tied to the specific set of plans approved by the Planning Commission and with modification of Item d. of the conditions of Approval to provide the option of a Landscape Covenant or a vegetation analysis; to approve Item C., P.C. Resolution No. 92-58; denying Variance No. 342; and to approve Item D., P.C. Resolution No. 92-59; approving Conditional use Permit No. 171. Motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Hayes abstaining. Chairman Katherman advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to hear New Business after the Consent Calendar. Motion passed 6-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS Because she lives very close to the Golden Cove Shopping Center, Commissioner Hayes felt that she should not participate in the discussion or vote on Item A. and left the meeting at this time. A. Sign Permit No. 584; Carlson Co. 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West (Golden Cove Shopping Center). 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 The applicant has requested approval for a directory sign 18 feet high and 10 feet four inches wide to be located at the Hawthorne Boulevard entrance to the Shopping Center. This is in addition to an existing 42 foot identification sign located on Palos Verdes Drive West. Assistant Planner Espe presented the Staff report recommending the request be denied since the proposed sign will reduce the necessary sight -distance of the Hawthorne Boulevard access. Also, the proposed sign does not conform to the Development Code in that it is over 16 feet and it is an identification sign instead of a major tenant identification sign. Staff feels that the visual character of the sign could result in increased hazards to traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard. Director Onderdonk advised the commission that Staff feels that signs affect the character of a community, and that quiet signage (meaning signs used to identify and not to advertise) is appropriate for Rancho Palos Verdes. The goal is to create a community that is elegant and visually attractive, looks well planned and is well identified. At the same time, Staff is very sympathetic to small businesses and strongly recommends a master sign program that establishes a hierarchy of signs within the Center. For example, the Golden Cove Shopping Center sign serves to identify the Center and then other signs identifying the businesses within the Center could be located in the parking lot. Director Onderdonk informed the Commission that research shows that it is impossible for drivers to read more than five lines on a sign without creating a traffic hazard. John A. Bottorff, Golden Cove Business Association, 6402 Via Baron, is the Owner/Operator of the Golden Lotus Restaurant located in the Center. He stated that people have no way to know what shops are in the Center such as a tailor, shoe repair business, etc., unless they come into the center. He informed the Commission that Vons is willing to give up their present sign. He stated that Rancho Palos Verdes has very little income producing commercial property, and that he hoped the Planning Commission would encourage small businesses, particularly those in the Golden Cove Shopping Center, by approving the sign. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the proposed sign could be located on the east side of the driveway. Mr. Bottorff responded that he had no objection to that, and Assistant Planner Espe informed the Commission that there is a row of trees located along the west side right-of-way easement that would block the sign. The trees may have to be removed. Commissioner Lorenzen commented that 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 there is a retaining wall on that side which might require that the sign be higher. Bob Briana, 31242B Hawthorne, stated that he is the owner of the liquor store in the Shopping Center. The store has been there for 25 years and many residents are still unaware there is a liquor store in the Center. Mr. Briana said the trees block the view of the stores and they are set so far back from Hawthorne Boulevard that there is no way to know what shops are in the center without a directory sign. Chairman Katherman stated that he thought the proposed sign was redundant as there is a reader board on the lower part of the existing shopping center sign. He asked if the merchants would be willing to remove that sign if the proposed sign were approved. Mr. Briana responded that the merchants can only use that sign three times a year. The rest of the time it is used for announcements of community and charitable events. Commissioner Mowlds stated that although he drives by the Golden Cove Shopping Center often, he did not know the liquor store was there until he saw a sign for free coffee at 7:00 a.m. on a car near the Hawthorne access. Mr. Briana responded that he had the sign for coffee on the Palos Verdes Drive West side for two weeks and on the Hawthorne Boulevard side for two weeks, and that he got a better response from the Hawthorne side. Dave Cardone, Applicant, Sign Methods, 5300 Orange, Cypress, is making the sign for The Carlson Company, the owners of the shopping center. He stated that he can reduce the proposed sign to 16 feet and can move it to whatever location is approved. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if he could modify the existing sign to accommodate the directory signs. Mr. Cardone responded that he did not know if the poles could handle the added signage. Commissioner Alberio stated that there are new materials that can make the sign lighter and Mr. Cardone agreed that he could make the sign a lot lighter, but that wind load was more a problem than weight. He said that he needed to check the records of the footings which have to meet certain minimum loads. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he did not object to two signs for the shopping center if that is what it takes bring in business, and he thinks they need a sign on the Hawthorne Boulevard side. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that they should do something to help Golden Cove Shopping Center and that some type of directory is needed which indicates what shops are located in 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 the center. The wording and lettering should be identical in size and script and it should be on the Hawthorne Boulevard side. As a possible alternative, Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that there could be identical signs of good design in front of each shop. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that his main concern is that the sign be set back so there is a good view of the cars coming up the hill, that the sign be no higher than 16 feet and that it be well-designed. Vice Chairman Byrd agreed with Commissioner Lorenzen and requested that it be a condition of approval that the sign will not cause any obstruction of visibility of cars pulling out and turning right on Hawthorne Boulevard to go up the hill or create any other visibility problems. Commissioner Alberio also stated that every shopping center needs a directory and that the Planning commission should do what they can to help the Golden Cove Shopping Center. He stated that he would like to see a directory sign on Hawthorne Boulevard that would meet Code and would not present a sight -distance problem. He also asked if the existing pylon sign could be situated so that it,would be seen from both Hawthorne Boulevard and from Palos Verdes Drive West. MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve the application with the condition that the sign be limited to 16 feet. No vote was taken. After further discussion, the Commission requested that the sign be consistent with existing signage as to script/type, color, etc. commissioner Mowlds, as the maker of the motion and Vice Chairman Byrd as the seconder, agreed to amend the motion as follows: NOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve Sign Permit No. 584 with final conditions of approval to include design guidelines. Staff is to prepare a Resolution with conditions of approval for the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1992. Motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Hayes abstaining. C. VARIANCE NO. 327, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1612, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 109; Gene Summers, 108 Spindrift. Chairman Katherman noted that the applicant has been notified by Staff that this item would be continued. Assistant Planner Espe informed the Commission that a new action deadline of November 11, 1992 had been set for Staff. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he and Commissioner Mowlds had met with staff to discuss the geology report. He said that the geology report does not agree with the plans submitted by applicant, and that one or the other has to be changed. Gene Summers, (applicant), 108 Spindrift, stated that he had talked to his civil engineer who thought the Planning Commission was nit-picking. Mr. Summers questioned why the Planning Commission was getting involved in geotechnical issues when he is paying for reports, civil engineers, soils engineers, etc. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the Planning Commission needs a complete set of documents that are consistent and on which the City will not have a financial liability. The plans as submitted to the Planning Commission have not been certified by a geologist since they do not agree with the geology report, and, therefore, the liability remains with the City. Commissioner Mowlds cited a similar issue on a project in Palos Verdes Estates which cost that city $20 million of uninsured loss when six homes were lost. He also stated that the Planning Commission required that a geologist go on record with approval of the Transamerica project before the Commission granted final approval. He explained that the Transamerica project was on the correct side of the building set back line and that applicant's project is on the wrong side of the set back line, which makes it even more important that the City have a geologist's approval. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the City has a document on record from a geologist for the Spindrift project saying it is ok, but it is for the wrong structure. Commissioner Alberio said he thought the Planning Commission was getting into the province of other areas such as public works, geology, civil engineering, etc. He said the project should be certified by a geotech person, and then, based on that certification, Staff will come up with their recommendations. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the original drawings submitted to the Planning Commission dated April 1992 showed the excavation of the storage area and the recreation room. The package dated September 8, 1992 submitted to the Planning Commission included the geologist's report dated May 15, 1992 which was based on the original plans of April 1992. However, the new plans submitted in the package of September 8th, showed that the depth of the storage area had been increased by three feet from the original plans. The excavation and amount of dirt to be moved to accommodate this increase is not reflected in the geology report. W PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 The Planning Commission approves the plans the applicant gives them and the geologist's report has to agree with those plans. Mr. Summers responded that his engineering consultants had talked to the City Engineer who said he did not see any problem with the project. Commissioner Hayes stated that it is her responsibility as a Planning Commissioner to analyze the material as submitted, and that the City Engineer has approved four feet which has now been changed to five feet which has not been approved. Now the City's geotech people have to analyze the five feet and it is costing both the City and the applicant additional money. She stated that this project is in Portuguese Bend and that she will be opposed to the project until she is absolutely sure that the applicant's geologist has the correct information and that the City geologist agrees. Chairman Katherman stated that the Planning Commission is trying to determine if it is feasible to do the magnitude of excavation in building this house that is being proposed. commissioner Alberio asked that the necessary clarification be made to determine if the excavation is four feet or five feet and that all the documents agree. NOTION: Chairman Katherman moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio, to continue Variance No. 327, Grading Permit No. 1612, Coastal Permit No. 109; to the Planning commission meeting of October 27, 1992. Motion passed 6-0. RECESS AND RECONVENE The meeting was recessed at 9:20 p. m. and reconvened at 9:32 p.m. Chairman Katherman stated that there would be a brief presenta- tion regarding trails. Sunshine, 6 Limetree, distributed copies of the Executive Summary of a four-month study done by the Regional Parks Service in conjunction with Pennsylvania State University on the impact of trails on adjacent property owners. Sunshine stated that although two of the three trails in the study are horse trails, the report said nothing about horses except for one comment from a property owner who said one of the things he liked about the trails was to watch the horses go by. She said the report had lots of positive things to say about the impact of trails. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 Sunshine previously provided a copy of the Executive Summary to the Parks and Recreation Department. Vice Chairman Byrd requested that the next item on the Agenda be New Business. There was no objection. NEW BUSINESS A. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1649; Mr. and Mrs. Inoue, 6883 Alta Vista Drive. Requested Action: Allow the construction of one five foot retaining wall to allow space for a 300 square foot patio in the rear yard and an additional five foot retaining wall to be located 50 feet down slope to allow 1,350 square feet of additional level yard space. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to waive the staff report. Motion passed 6-0. FUsko Inque, 6883 Alta Vista Drive, stated that he did not have any questions or comments on the conditions of approval. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve Grading Permit No. 1649 subject to the conditions of approval on Exhibit "All of the staff report. Motions passed 6-0.. PUBLIC HEARING, A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 172, VARIANCE NO. 340; Chester Smith Associates (representing California Water Co.), 5837 Crest Road. Requested Action: Legalize the existing use, allow an 1,800 square foot addition to the existing building and a new 4,000 square foot equipment/storage shed that will be located on the property. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the staff report recom- mending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance, subject to conditions. Mr. de Freitas distributed copies of a petition he received today from Seaview Villas homeowners which is adjacent to applicant's property stating that they opposed the project. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 Commissioner Alberio asked if any phone calls or letter of opposition had been received prior to today. commissioner Hayes asked why the adjacent homeowners were claiming that there is going to be an enormous wall along their property line when Staff has indicated that they did not feel there was going to be any impairment to these homeowners. Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr. de Freitas had read the letter from the homeowners indicating several objections to the project such as screening, aesthetics, blocking of light, etc. Vice Chairman Byrd commented that many of the homeowners say that the proposed wall will impact their views. He confirmed that the fence that is there now is six feet and that the proposed wall will be 16 feet. Assistant Planner de Freitas responded that he had not received any calls or letter in opposition to the project prior to today, that it is Staff's position that there will not be any impact on the neighbors below the project, and that the storage shed will not be visible due to the change in elevation, the transitional slope, the density of vegetation on the slope and the existing fence at the top of the slope. Mr. de Freitas said that, at most, only the top two feet of the proposed wall will be visible. The views out the back of the homeowners property are not protected views per Code. He stated that he believed the sketch attached to the homeowners' letter was not to scale and did not represent actual conditions. Steve Smith, (Applicant). 22850 Crenshaw Boulevard, stated that he is the architect for the project and he was there to answer any questions. Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr. Smith had discussed the project with the adjacent property owners and if he had considered screening the wall with shrubbery. Mr. Smith responded that he had not met with the homeowners. He said it would be possible to pull the storage shed off the property line and to add more trees and shrubs. Vice chairman Byrd stated that removing the existing fence will damage the existing vegetation and that the proposed concrete wall will be visible through the vegetation. Mr. Smith advised that they will make it a decorative wall. Commissioner Lorenzen asked why the shed was placed on the property line and not further into the yard which would allow them to keep the existing fence. Chairman Katherman asked where Mr. Smith would prefer to place the proposed wall. He responded that they were lining the proposed shed up with the other shed and that he prefers to keep the trees and vegetation that are on WE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 the property line now and to build the structure off the property line about five feet. Tom Allen, 6304 Sattes Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, stated that he is a member of the Board of the Seaview Villas Homeowners Association and that he is representing the Association. He presented Staff with 41 additional signed petitions against the project (sixty percent of the homeowners have signed the petition). Mr. Allen stated that they object to the building being right on the property line, which is not appropriate for a residential area. He stated that there is enough space on the property for the California Water Department to move the structure off the property line, and that the proposed placement of the shed is not necessary for reasonable use of the property. He said the Homeowners also object to the 16 foot concrete wall since it will still be visible even when properly screened by landscaping. He stated that they are not claiming view impairment, but that they are claiming negative visual impact and detriment to their property because of the appearance of the wall. Mr. Allen requested that the applicant move the shed at least ten feet off the property line, and that the area between the property line and the shed be planted with shrubs and trees sufficient to screen it. He also stated that the building as designed has a 3011 differential between the westerly side and the roof, which could be reduced to a six inch differential. This would keep the same function while lowering the overall height by two feet and would also be less expensive to the Water Company. Mr. Allen stated that he was an engineer and believed that the sketch submitted to Staff was to scale. He advised that since Seaview Villas is in Rolling Hills Estates, he had discussed this project with the Rolling Hills Estates Assistant Planning Director who said he was surprised the Water Company had selected that placement of the proposed structure, and that he could not support that if it were in Rolling Hills Estates. Commissioner Mowlds advised Mr. Allen that the Uniform Building Code requires that a parapet be 30 inches. He also advised that the applicant can build up to the five foot setback from the property line without Planning Commission approval. Evan Wood, #20 Seaview Drive South, Rolling Hills Estates, stated that he is the resident most directly affected by the proposed building as his property backs up to the slope. He stated that the slope goes up 14 feet to 15 feet to his house, and if they put an 18 foot wall on the property line, he would be looking at 30 feet right out his windows. He said the wall would destroy the aesthetics, and block the sunlight and the air flow behind 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 his home. He only gets sunlight in his back patio a short time now and if the wall is built as proposed, he may not get any sunlight at all. He asked the Commission how they would feel if someone built a structure 18 feet high behind their homes. Mr. Wood requested that the California Water company move the structure ten feet off the property line and lower it to 12 to 13 feet which would be more reasonable. He asked what the shed was going to be used for and stated that he was concerned about increased noise. It is now a quiet residential area and he felt it should stay that way. Commissioner Alberio asked if there would be noise from machinery. Chairman Katherman commented that it was a solid wall with no windows and Assistant de Freitas stated that Staff had taken into consideration that it would probably be quieter with the storage shed than the open equipment storage area now in use. Michael R. Collins, General Superintendent of California water Service Company, 18417 Faysmith Avenue, stated that he was there to answer any questions. In response to Chairman Katherman's question, Mr. Collins said that the shed will be used for storage only since they do not repair their own equipment. Commissioner Alberio asked if he had any problem with moving the building back. Mr. Collins responded that if they move it back too far it will interfere with an existing gate and driveway. The proposed structure is lined up so they can go straight out the back gate. Commissioner Lorenzen noted that it would not be too difficult to move the driveway over and Mr. Collins responded that if they did that, they might lose some storage space in the existing bunkers. He advised that the bunkers are arranged now so that people at higher elevations do not look down on the bunkers, and if they have to move them, people might have to look down on them. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that the applicant did not need that much facia on the roof, and Mr. Collins agreed that if they move the structure five feet off the property line they would not need the parapet which would drop 30 inches. Chairman Katherman stated that if the building is placed five feet from the property line, thus eliminating the requirement for the parapet, there would be no need for a variance which would solve the Planning Commission's problems and go a long way to solve the neighbors' problems. Assistant Planner de Freitas agreed that a variance 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 would not be needed and it would simply be a matter of approving the Conditional Use Permit. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he objected to the lose of light and to the appearance of the wall. Commissioner Alberio stated that he would like to see some landscaping and vegetation between the fence and the block wall. Chairman Katherman asked how the existing chain link fence would be landscaped. Mr. Smith answered that he would put up a silhouette that would represent the top part of the shed and would work with the Seaview Homeowners Association and with Staff to determine what landscaping is needed. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to deny Variance No. 340, to require at least a five foot setback and a maximum height of 16 feet for the storage shed, to request that Staff write a condition describing the process to evaluate the need for landscaping on the other side of the shed; and to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 172. Motion passed 6-0. B. VARIANCE NO. 323, HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 743 - APPEAL, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1617; Helen and David Engel, 6 Headland Drive. Requested Action: Overturn the Director's denial of Height Variation No. 743, and approve Grading No. 1617 and Variance No. 323 to allow a portion of the proposed structure to exceed the City's 30 foot maximum height limitation for downslope height. Assistant Planner Jerex presented the staff report recommending that the height variation appeal and variance not be granted because view impairment would be created for the upslope lot and no hardship findings can be made to supersede the Code's height restriction. Given the large size of this lot and available options for development, Staff considers the request to exceed the 30 -foot height limitation a self-imposed hardship. The maximum downslope height of the highest ridgeline of the proposed addition would be 3316". Ms. Jerex presented photo boards of several pictures taken by Staff and several pictures taken with a telephoto lens by a neighbor of the applicants. Assistant Planner Jerex stated that she was presenting the pictures taken with the telephoto lens since her pictures did not show the horizon line. She stated that she had received four letters from neighbors opposing the project. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 Dan Goodrich, Goodrich & Associates, 839 S. Beacon Street, San Pedro, stated that he is the architect for the landowners. He said he did not believe the hardship was self-imposed, but rather was due to the unusual condition of the sloping driveway in front of the garage door. Mr. Goodrich stated that the problem could be resolved by raising the grade of the driveway. He agreed that a portion of the view would be impaired by the second story addition. Chairman Katherman suggested that the second story be shifted to the north which would move it behind some existing pine trees that are already blocking the neighbor's view. Commissioner Mowlds and Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the house would be unattractive if the second story were shifted. Commissioner Lorenzen observed that the applicant was limited in what they could do without moving the pool. Commissioner Alberio stated that he agreed with Staff that the view would be impaired by the second story addition, and that there was room on the acre of land to expand without blocking views. He asked if the applicant had talked with Mr. Tarr to work out a compromise. Mr. Goodrich stated that he understood that Mr. Tarr would not accept anything over 16 feet. Commissioner Alberio said that the applicant is providing his clients with a tremendous view at the expense of Mr. Tarr's view. Chairman Katherman asked if the garage is on the same level as the existing garage and if it is connected to the house. Mr. Goodrich responded that it is on the same level and it is connected to the house. Assistant Planner Jerex stated that since the garage is not separated from the house, the measurement is taken from the lowest point covered by the structure. Steven Goldberg (Attorney for Landowners), 7078 Torrance, Boulevard, Redondo Beach, stated that he believed there was a way to do this pro]ect . Commissioner Alberio stated that since there were no legal issues before the Commission, it was out of order for an attorney to address the Planning Commission on this project, and that those opposing the project also have the right to have an attorney represent them on this issue. Chairman Katherman said that attorneys have addressed the Commission before and since the Planning Commission is a quasi-judicial body, the applicant has the right to have anyone represent them. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 Mr. Goldberg stated that if there were no view impairment, the height variation issue would become less important. He said anytime someone puts up a second story by the ocean, someone's view will be impaired. He said substantial foliage had been cut by Mr. Tarr where the view impairment can now be seen on his pictures. Commissioner Alberio informed applicant that the conditions and covenants run with the land and not the individual, and that the Commission analyzes view impairment as if the trees were not there. He stated that Mr. Tarr's property values would go down if that view were blocked, and by building a second story to improve his client's views he was blocking the view of the neighbor in back. Mr. Goldberg confirmed that was true, but said that they needed to build up and if they ignored all the foliage there would not be significant view impairment. Paul Tarr, 94 Headland Drive, stated that he is opposed to the project since he is the neighbor behind the applicant's house and his view would be impacted. He explained that the house shown in his photos, and to which he referred in his first letter, was built in 1965 and blocked 90% of his harbor view. The proposed project would wipe out 80% of his view of the ocean, Orange County and the harbor. Mr. Tarr explained that the top of the plywood in his pictures was 16 feet and he would object to any structure over that height. In response to Commissioner Hayes' question, Mr. Tarr said he would have a view from his deck of the Union Oil Refinery if the other trees were thinned. Mr. Tarr does not consider the Refinery a desirable view. The Commissioners agreed that the project as proposed would create a significant and cumulative view impairment and that applicant should work with Staff and Mr. Tarr to redesign the house to eliminate the view impairment. commissioner Lorenzen and Vice Chairman Byrd stated that because of the size of the lot, they felt applicant could design a reasonable size house limited to a height of 16 feet. Chairman Katherman suggested there may be a way to design a two story house without impacting the views and asked Staff if there was a recommendation they could make. Assistant Planner Jerex responded that the second story is the master bedroom and study and that the portion blocking the view is a closet area. She felt that it would not be a problem to move this portion of the house over. It might block the view of the oil refinery, but she didn't think Mr. Tarr would object. 15 i. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 • MOTION: commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes, to direct the Staff to work with the applicant and architect to redesign the project in a manner that does not create view impairment from any portion of the structure built over 16 feet in height, and to continue Variance No. 323, Height Variation No. 743 - Appeal, and Grading Permit No. 1617 to November 10, 1992. Motion passed 6-0. Chairman Katherman advised the applicant that they will have six weeks to prepare a redesign and bare bones skeleton silhouette of the project. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE J. J. D. McLaren, 3923,Palos Verdes Drive South, asked what is the status of the proposed residential and golf course proposal in subregions 7 and 8. Chairman Katherman responded that Hon -Zuckerman decided not to appeal and they are planning to reapply with a redesigned project later this year. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: chairman Katherman moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to adjourn to the Landslide Tour scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, September 26. Motion passed 6-0. The meeting was duly adjourned at 12:05 a.m.