Loading...
PC MINS 19930914TAY. 10/12/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Robert Katherman at Hesse Park Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Alberio, Bryd, Lorenzen, Hayes, Katherman ABSENT: Clark, Mowlds Also present were Director of Environmental Services Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Kimberly Klopf enstein, Code Enforcement Officers George Rodericks and Leea Kimball, and Recording Secretary Michelle Kennerson. Luwella Wike led the flag salute. COMMUNICATIONS Staff 1. Director Bernard acknowledged receipt of late correspondence which was received by Staff, and entered into the Public Record. 2. Director Bernard requested that New Business Item VIII A be moved to before the Public Hearing. 3. Director Bernard introduced the new City's Code Enforcement Officer, Leea Kimball. KOW 1 F*4 Z ka Lo" 0" D 6 Y i A. The minutes of August 24, 1993 were continued to September 28, 1993, due to lack of a quorum for approval. B P.C. Resolution No. 93-24; Recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21, Zone Change 22, and Code Amendment No. 37 to make all existing automobile service stations in Residential and Institutional zones legal uses and to allow existing service stations in commercial zones without the need for a Conditional Use Permit to City Council. Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 93-24. Commissioner Lorenzen abstained. (4-0- 1) NEW BUSINESS A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 634: America's Tire Co. , 28925 S. Western Avenue (Applicant) ; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 1444 E. Market, Akron, OH (landowner). (KK) Reading of the Staff Report was waived regarding the applicant's request to approve one permanent wall mounted identification sign and one pole sign 201 in height for America's Tire Co. Staff's recommendation is to approve one wall mounted tenant identification sign with a total of 100 square feet and one monument sign 61 in height with a total sign area of 50 S.F., subject to conditions of approval. Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein stated that America's Tire Co. has temporary signs on the building that are unpermitted and a condition could be added to Exhibit "All which states that all temporary signs shall be removed within 30 days or the owner shall submit a temporary sign permit to allow the temporary banners for a longer period of time. Ron Farmer, U.S. Signs, representative, Houston, Texas stated that his company is looking to make the present store very attractive and he then passed out examples of his signs that are in various locations in the United States. He stated that what his company is proposing is a 256 square foot wall mounted identification sign and a 72 square foot freestanding sign which would be 201 in height. He stated that 95% of their business in from San Pedro. He continued to say that they would like more business from Rancho Palos Verdes, so he feels they need to creatively advertise to attract customers from Rancho Palos Verdes. He stated that he wants to make it possible for people to be able to see the sign enough in advance so they won't have to make sudden turns to get to the building. He also added that they want a combination of signage that has good size letters on the side of the building that can be read from an reasonable distance. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Farmer if he has any problems with the conditions of approval that Staff has recommended. Mr. Farmer responded that he has no problem with the conditions, except from the maximum square footage of the new signs. Commissioner Hayes continued to say that she is in support of getting businesses on Western Avenue renewed again and asked if the hours of illumination (up until midnight) are too restrictive. Mr. Farmer responded that the hours of illumination are acceptable to him. He also stated that since America Tire Co. moved into their location, the motel next door has repaved their parking lot and cleaned up their site, so he feels that they have had a good influence on the appearance of their locations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 2 Commissioner Byrd asked Staff and the applicant if the Sign Program as described in Exhibit "B", allows the applicant to construct signage as reflected in the pictures that were presented. Mr. Garmer responded that they did not. Commissioner Katherman confirmed with Mr. Farmer that he was agreeable to placing the sign at 10 feet. Mr. Farmer agreed. commissioner Byrd clarified to the applicant that he was speaking of the sign that would be on the face of the building. Ms. Klopfenstein responded that Staff felt that a height of 2 feet for individual letters was too large. The Code does specify 1 square foot of sign area per 1 lineal foot of building frontage up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. for their sign area, and they have a proposed 256 sq. ft. The area for both the pole sign and the building sign exceed the Code, but there is no limit for the letter height. Mr. Farmer clarified that they are asking for 4 foot high letters on the building and 2 foot high letters on the pole sign. If the Commission feels a larger sign would be appropriate then the Staff would approve it. Ms. Klopfenstein stated that the pole sign will be 72 square feet. The Code allows 50 square feet for a freestanding or pole signs. Commissioner Alberio stated that because the location is across from the City of Los Angeles, the Commission should encourage businesses effectively to compete with the businesses across Western Avenue. Mr. Alberio stated that he feels the Commission should accommodate the applicant. Ms. Klopfenstein asked Commissioner Alberio if he wants to approve to the 256 square foot sign or the 100 square feet sign. commissioner Alberio stated that he wants to approve the 256 square foot wall mounted sign, with 24 inch high letters and the pole sign which would be 72 sq. ft. Ms. Klopfenstein stated that this is what the applicant originally requested. Commissioner Byrd stated that if the businesses on western Avenue are to compete with the City of Los Angeles directly across the street, they have to be allowed to construct signage that would attract the business, as long as it is in good taste. He continued to say that based on good taste, the Commission should expand what the our Code says for those particular businesses. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Byrd to approve, via minute order, one wall mounted tenant identification sign with a total sign area of 256 square feet, and 48 inch letters, and one 201 pole sign with a total sign area of 72 square feet and 24 inch letters. (5-0) PUBLIC HEARING A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 777 - APPEAL• Angie Proctor and Kirk Hyde, 7 Amber Sky Drive. (KK) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 3 Commissioner Byrd moved,, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to continue this item to September 28,, 1993 (per applicant's request). CONTINUED BUSINESS A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23548• Luke and Elaine Conovaloff, 26559 Silver Spur Road. (TS) Associate Planner Terry Silverman presented the Staff Report regarding the applicant's request to allow the subdivision of an existing lot in the RS -5 zoning district into two single family residential parcels with a minimum lot size of 29,132 square feet for Parcel 1 and a minimum lot size of 8, 000 square feet for Parcel 2. This application was previously denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission last year, and the landowner has requested to submit additional information demonstrating that Parcel 2 could accommodate a new single family residence. The re -submittal of the Parcel Map has been accompanied by Conceptual Plans showing construction of a 2,100 square foot, split level residents which will require approximately 360 cubic yards of grading on Parcel 2. Staff's recommendation is to deny the request. The applicants could not attend the hearing, but do have representatives in the audience. Commissioner Hayes asked Ms. Silverman to comment on the original tract map for the area. Ms. Silverman responded that the tract map that Staff has isn't clear, but there is an accessory map that shows that at one point there were three separate lots located there. Commissioner Hayes asked if Parcel 2 was a separate lot at one time. Ms. Silverman responded that it is a different configuration, but there was another lot on the property. Commissioner Hayes then asked if there was any way some flat land for outdoor living. Ms. Silverman responded that the applicants had considered modifying the lot lines to move them further north, which would provide for additional level area, but this area would be separate from the residence. If the property is developed, the Code does require a minimum of 3,000 sq. ft. of contiguous area with slopes less than 35 percent. Technically, this project does meet these minimum requirements. However, much of that area is within setback areas and is of an unusual configuration making most of it unusable for development. The result is approximately 1830 sq. ft. of area remaining for development, which is very minimal. Commissioner Byrd asked Ms. Silverman if she concurred with the packet that the applicants had prepared for the Commission. Ms. Silverman responded that she did have a chance to review the packet and found most of the issues in the packet were addressed in the staff report, with the exception of the information regarding the property on Mossbank Drive. The applicants had indicated the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 4 project on Mossbank Drive was a similar project and that the City allowed development. However, Staff clarified that there were many problems related to the development of the property although there were restrictive use areas clearly defined on the approved parcel map. Commissioner Byrd asked Ms. Silverman if she concurred with the analysis regarding the view from 26557 Silver Spur and her input regarding the statement in the staff report regarding the validity of the height of the flags from 154 to 156 ft. Ms. Silverman responded that the location of the poles in relation to the topographic map would suggest to Staff that the flags should be a minimum of 10 ft. from the ground. However, after locating them, they are only approximately 6 1/2 ft. above the ground, which would indicate there is a discrepancy in the topographic plans. The applicant's engineers have provided a certification stating that the flag height is correct, notwithstanding the fact that the poles themselves are not in the correct location. The result is that Staff has been unable to verify the height with their equipment, but Staff accepts their engineer's calculations. David Boyd, architect, 23314 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 3, Torrance, CA stated that he would like to address the grading of the extreme slope. Referring to page 19 of the applicant's packet, he stated that the grading is very minor. The amount of grading for the driveway which is 14 cubic yards within the extreme slope is also minor. When compared to other projects located on Mossbank Drive and Mustang Road, the amount of grading is very minor. Mr. Boyd stated the overall grading of 360 c.y, is not very much for this type of development. Mr. Boyd added that the Fire Department has withdrawn their objection to this project, with the condition that the landowner install sprinklers inside the existing structure on Parcel 1. Since the last meeting, when the Planning Commission denied the Parcel Map, three more concerns have come to surface, namely, the compatibility of lots, homes and the potential view impairment. Referring to the analysis of the lot sizes from the applicant's packet, Mr. Boyd pointed out the various lot sizes of the surrounding area. He continued to say that he feels there needs to be room in the City for smaller lots with smaller houses. He stated that he feels that should allow the applicants to subdivide this lot as long as it meets minimum code requirements. Mr. Boyd referred to discussion regarding the size of the house being too small. He disagrees that it is too small. He made a comparison with the five adjacent houses and stated that the applicant's house would be on a bigger lot than the rest of the neighborhood, referring to the design presented to the Commission. Mr. Boyd then presented his opinions on neighborhood compatibility and view analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 5 Commissioner Byrd asked Mr. Boyd specific questions regarding the outdoor living area off the bedroom on the east side. Ms. Silverman stated the reference refers to existing level in portions of the rear setback, which is about 1200 sq. ft. which is unusable for development. Mr. Boyd stated that it is unusual for the development of the building but not for a backyard. Director Bernard pointed out that it is unusual; most backyards in the City do have some flat area adjacent to the structure, not upslope from the house itself. Mr. Boyd stated the commission has asked him to do a study to see if a house could be built on this lot. He added that the plan does need fine tuning referring to the discussion on rear setbacks. He said his applicants are requesting a lot split, so the house presented here tonight is not fully developed and are only conceptual. Commissioner Byrd commented to the architect that if the Commission grants the lot split, the height will be a problem because the Code allows structures up to 161 in height. The house next door would have a view impairment. Mr. Boyd mentioned that the Commission could impose a restrictive covenant on the lot to prevent the applicants from going over a certain height. He also mentioned that a restrictive covenant can apply to the grading as well. Commissioner Alberio stated his concern that if the lot is sold sometime in the future, the buyer would come to the City complaining there is too many restrictions and request modifications to the covenant. Chairman Katherman,added that this potential buyer would have to file numerous variances to build a reasonable size structure. Commissioner Alberio continued to say that the applicants have to prove that this lot is buildable. Commissioner Hayes asked Ms. Silverman about the minimum buildable area requirements of the Development Code. Ms. Silverman clarified that 1830 sq. ft. is what remains as developable area, once the setbacks are removed from the area with slopes less than 35%. Of that the applicants are proposing a buildable pad of approximately 1500 sq. ft. Doug McHattie, 277550 Longhill Drive, RPV, engineer for South Bay Engineering, stated that his company did verify that the flags on the lot were at the correct height. William A. Finer, attorney, 3424 Carson St., Ste. 500, Torrance, CA stated that the applicants will voluntarily imposed a height restriction by creating a view easement. A document establishing a view easement would be signed by the applicants, and would bind the property and run with the land forever. It would confine the property to a certain height, to prevent any view impairment in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 6 • • future. He also stated they could also work with the Commission and Staff to impose any other appropriate restrictions on this easement. Commissioner Alberio stated that Mr. Finer's suggestion regarding covenants and easements would be premature because there is no house yet. He continued to say that in theory he thinks it is a good idea. Chairman Katherman stated that his concern is that the applicant would sell the home and the future buyers would have a reasonable expectation of a larger home on this property. He continued to say he would not want the future buyers to be put in a position where their expectations exceed the reality of this particular lot. He said he agrees with Commissioner Alberio in regards to view easements. He commented that a noticing program would be helpful for future buyers. Mr. Katherman said he feels the future buyers should be protected from a situation like this. Commissioner Alberio expressed his concern for the future buyers also. Commissioner Hayes expressed the same concern. Mr. Finer responded that the Commission can create a mechanism in terms of grading so in order to grade more than a certain number of cubic yards, a variance would be required. Commissioner Alberio stated he feels if the commission places too many restrictions on a property, the owners can come back and claim it is unconstitutional and want to pursue that legally. Mr. Finer responded that he feels it would be different in this case because the applicants would voluntarily submit these restrictions. Mr. Finer stated that his applicants have a buildable lot and they can achieve the goals outlined with reasonable restrictions. Jess Dorman, 26557 Silver Spur Road, RPV, CA spoke against the proposed lot split saying that if a restrictive view covenant easement is put in place, future buyers of the lot would be filing for variances. Mr. Dorman said that the development of the structure of the site would cause significant view impairment from his property which is directly adjacent to, and upslope from, the proposed Parcel 2. Mr. Dorman also commented on the potential of trees on the new parcel blocking his view in the future. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Dorman if the easement/ covenant that the applicants representatives have described were in place, would he be willing to compromise. Mr. Dorman responded that assuming the covenants include the trees, it would complicate his situation if he were to sell his property. He said he would have to explain to the potential buyer that the easement is there and that he could not guarantee them whoever owned the property would not come in and apply for a variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Byrd asked Mr. Dorman if the sticks with strings across were there as a measurement of his potential view if the project went through. Mr. Dorman confirmed this and added that the string height is based on 152.81 survey mark at the corner of his patio. He then came up 31-611 above that to get a height of 1561- 311. Mr. Byrd commented that a landscape covenant on the property would be limited to the growth of the trees to 161 or the ridge height of the home, whichever is lower. Commissioner Hayes stated that she did go into Mr. Dorman's house and she feels there is a definite view impairment even from his living room. Chairman Katherman asked Staff what was the estimated height of the flag level. Ms. Silverman responded that there are two flag levels; one is at elevation 1541 and as viewed from Mr. Dorman's property that is the set to the left; to the right of that there are flags that represent elevation 1561. Ms. Silverman added that Mr. McHattie informed her that the view was double checked with the topography by their surveyors and they have certified to be as accurate as possible. Mr. Finer reiterated the view easement idea that the applicants would voluntarily submit. Chairman Katherman clarified to Mr. Finer that the applicants would be granting an easement to Mr. Dorman and any other affected owners above the elevation 1541. This would be a contract between the applicants, the future owners of the property, the Dormans, and any other easement holders. Mr. Finer stated that he would develop a list of all the adjacent property owners and list them as the parties benefitting from this easement. It was clarified that this not only covers structures, but landscaping as well. Commissioner Hayes referred to a letter she had received from a property owner that stated their opposition to the project. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hayes stated that she sees potential view impairment and great problems down the road. She feels she has to vote for what would be the best situation for the present and future. Commissioner Byrd recalled that the Commission has come across the same situation before where a lot split was allowed with certain restrictions which was located on Mustang Road. Mr. Byrd continued to explain his concerns about a lot split in relation to setbacks and lot size. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he is looking at the problems that would occur later with the creation of the lot split. He also PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 8 stated that he can foresee the future owners of this lot having problems developing a home that met their expectations. Commissioner Alberio stated his concerns rest with the fact that the lot is not buildable. Even though the applicants would be willing to submit easements and covenants, he sees too many problems if the applicant's request was approved. Chairman Katherman stated that he disagrees with his fellow Commissioners. He said when he originally had the Staff recommendation for approval of the lot split, he felt the remaining issue was if the site was buildable. In his opinion, the applicants have demonstrated that the lot is buildable and they would impose a condition that would eliminate the various issues, such as controlling the grading and protecting views. He continued to say his concern for the property would be notifying the future buyers of the limited development potential and the fact that yard variances would necessar. He would like to see the future buyers noticed as to the size of the lot and that this lot is intended to have a small home that would be more affordable than the large homes that are typically being built in the City. He feels that it would be good for the City to have smaller homes that would fit into the character of this neighborhood. He thinks an even smaller house can be built which would leave a bigger yard area. With a covenant and easement proposed by the applicant's attorney, and the fact that the home did meet all other code requirements and yard setbacks, he finds it difficult to deny this application on that basis. Commissioner Alberio clarified to Chairman Katherman that what he said in essence is the "buyer beware" and that if they did purchase the lot with all the restrictions, then the Commission has done their job. Chairman Katherman agreed. commissioner Alberio then said on that basis he was willing to change his mind and approve the request, subject to conditions. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Byrd to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 93-25, denying the request. (3-2) Katherman and Alberio dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE A 10 -minute break was called at 8:50 p.m. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding various procedures which might enable the Commission to regulate site improvement in order to notify future buyers of the varying restrictions of property subject to the parcel maps. It was determined that there was not enough support on the Commission to reconsider Tentative Parcel Map No. 23548. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS B. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 116, VARIANCE NO. 357• Dr. Robert Hunt, 6470 Seacove Drive (TS) C. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 117, VARIANCE NO. 358, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 71 - REVISION I'D" Dr. Robert Hunt, 6470 Seacove Drive (TS) Chairman Katherman decided, with the Commission's permission, to combine the two items since there were speakers on both applications and they are interrelated. Director Bernard noted, however that when taking action on the two projects that the Commission should consider them separately. Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report regarding the applicant's request to allow after -the -fact approval of a subterranean sauna with patio and handrailing above, located seaward of the Building Setback Line (between the Building Setback Line and the Coastal Setback Line) and after -the -fact approval of irrigation, landscaping, walkways, and fountain, minor grading and modification to the approved tract fencing seaward of the Costal Setback Line. Staff's recommendation is, pursuant to administrative error provisions of the Development Code, to approve the request for the subterranean sauna only, subject to conditions of approval and deny the request for all improvements except for irrigation and minor grading seaward pf the Coastal Setback Line. Commissioner Byrd asked Ms. Silverman when she mentioned palm trees in the Staff Report, did she mean the palm trees in the Coastal Setback Zone. Ms. Silverman responded that in this case it refers to the palm trees located on the whole property, including the trees located in the public parkway along Seacove Drive. Discussion ensued among Mr. Byrd and Ms. Silverman regarding the height of the palm trees and ridge height of the surrounding area homes. Commissioner Hayes referred to one section of the garden wall that extends out on the west side and asked Staff if that would be removed. Ms. Silverman responded that Staff has recommended that the garden walls be allowed to remain. The public hearing was opened. Dr. Robert Hunt, 6470 Seacove Drive, RPV, CA applicant, stated that on Coastal Permit No. 116, the subterranean sauna was initially proposed on the north side of his house, but after discussion with City Staff, it was determined that the sauna could not be placed there. Dr. Hunt continued to describe the details of how the plans that were drawn up for the sauna. He said to call this request an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 10 after -the -fact approval is a gross error. Dr. Hunt then referred to the request for after -the -fact approval of irrigation, landscaping, walkways, and fountains, and minor grading and modifications to the approved tract fencing seaward of the Coastal Setback Line, saying that he would be glad to comply with all directives but thinks he should be treated fairly like everyone else in the community. Dr. Hunt then described the overgrowth of vegetation of his surrounding neighbor's yards. Dr. Hunt stated that he would like the walkways to stay because they prevent the accumulation of water even from the drainage system, to prevent further erosion, loss of the bluff, or destruction of the plant habitat. Dr. Hunt stated that he hopes the Commission would consider the request because he is trying to improve the beauty of his home. Commissioner Alberio clarified to Dr. Hunt that Staff is trying to enforce the Code. He stated to Dr. Hunt that he will find equity here with the commission. He told Dr. Hunt he has not been treated fairly nor unfairly yet. Staff came with a recommendation and it is up to the Commission to determine the decision. Commissioner Lorenzen asked Dr. Hunt if he was aware of the Coastal Setback Zone when he purchased the house. Dr. Hunt responded that he was not sure if he was aware at that time. He admitted that he should of paid more attention to those details but he was captivated by the beauty of the location. He admitted that he should have paid more attention to the covenants that were attached to the sale of the house. Commissioner Byrd questioned Dr. Hunt if at the back corner of his backyard a catch basin for the irrigation water was installed. Dr. Hunt confirmed this and explained how this was done. Mr. Byrd then asked Dr. Hunt if a permit was obtained for the fence in the backyard. Dr. Hunt responded that it was. Associate Planner Silverman clarified that a permit had been issued for after -the -fact modifications that had been made to the tract fencing located along the trail easement. Director Bernard stated that Dr. Hunt was incorrect when he stated that Staff was entirely at fault for approving the sauna. The applicant has the obligation to provide the City, landowner and Staff with accurate plans. Staff is then required to verify those plans. Mr. Bernard then stated that Staff has received code enforcement complaints against Dr. Hunt. When Staff receives code enforcement complaints about any other property owner, they will investigate. Chairman Katherman agreed with Mr. Bernard and added that the code enforcement complaint system has operated in the past on a reactive basis, and that is the situation we have tonight. When an error was made based on inaccurate information, the error PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 11 - I 0 was compounded because it was not caught, but ultimately the responsibility falls to the landowner, landowner's architect, and the landowner's engineer to provide accurate information. George Hillyard, 2915 La Jolla , Anaheim, CA architect, stated that he was brought into this project a year ago. He continued to say he is in the process of submitting plans for different species of palm trees and feels confident that the issue of the palm trees can be resolved. He mentioned the drainage system is in place and they would like to leave that system there. The system drains into the storm drains. Mr. Hillyard explained to the Commission the way the drainage system works. Commissioner Byrd asked Mr. Hillyard if he was responsible for the absence of permits originally. Mr. Hillyard responded that he was brought into this project only after the Stop Work Order was issued. John Zahn, 3626 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA contractor (Sunset Designers & Builders) explained to the Commission which issues of Dr. Hunt's application and actual work was done by Sunset Builders. Mr. Zahn further explained that they constructed the sauna, and were responsible for the hardscaping of the front yard and placing the fountains there, also responsible for the walls in the front yards. Discussion ensued among the Commission and Mr. Zahn regarding the height of the walls and after -the -fact permits for the walls and sauna. Mr. Zahn also explained about the decking and how that was constructed. He stated that he hopes the Commission will approve the request as it would be very costly to remove everything now. Commissioner Byrd asked Mr. Zahn if he were aware of what was allowed in the Coastal Setback Zone. Mr. Zahn responded that there was a question when the City put a Stop Work Order on his work because they removed the wrought iron fencing and replaced it with a retaining wall because the soil was eroding. Mr. Byrd stated that it is not the responsibility of the City to inform him, it was his responsibility to find this out. Ms. Silverman clarified to the Commission in reference to the comments made regarding Assistant Planner de Freitas notations on the approved plans, the plans were highlighted using the blue print lines shown on the plans submitted by the applicant. Also, in regards to the modifications made to the fencing, Staff was informed that modifications to the fence were made not because there was a problem with erosion, but that the dog had been escaping from the yard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 12 Herb Younger, 620 So. Gertruda Ave., Redondo Beach, CA, General Contractor, stated he was asked by Dr. Hunt a couple of months ago to step in and finish the work that was started. He testified that he thought the hardscaping was aesthetically pleasing and done very well. He was not aware of the drainage system situation until he spoke with Dr. Hunt. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Younger how high the handrailing would be on the top of the sauna. Mr. Younger responded that he believes the code states it should be 3611-38". Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Younger why it was necessary to have a deck on top of the sauna. Mr. Younger responded that it would be more aesthetic than a flat roof. Martin Harvey, 15651 Monroe St., Midway City, CA, contracting drafter, stated that the handrailing is imperative to this design because it carries through with the aesthetics of the house through the backyard. He stated that the top of the sauna could be used for an observation platform. Peli Hunt, 6470 Seacove, RPV, CA stated that she has had no peace since moving into this house 4 years ago, because the City constantly brings the police there due to the neighbor's complaints. She also stated that everyone in her neighborhood is in violation for their trees. She asked that the Commission be consistent and fair. Harely A. Rennick, 32706 Via Palacio, RPV, CA, presented a photo board of pictures showing the view impairment from his house caused by Dr. Hunt's trees. Mr. Rennick continued to testify to the Commission the effects of the trees on his view from his home. Mr. Rennick expressed his hope to the Commission that he hopes they deny the request. Chairman Katherman stated to Mr. Rennick that the Commission is not a body to regulate view restoration like the View Restoration Committee. Ms. Silverman responded that Mr. Rennick's concerns are in the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission because this site is located within a Residential Planned Development that had specific conditions applied through the Conditional Use Permit that restrict landscaping to the ridgeline of the structure, and which require landscaping to be installed in such a manner that it does not impair views from adjacent properties. Discussion ensued among the Commission, Staff and Mr. Rennick regarding exactly what Dr. Hunt is requesting in regards to his landscaping. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 13 Dr. Rick Quintero, 6490 Sdacove Drive, RPV, CA stated that he feels Dr. Hunt and Sunset Builders acted in a capricious manner as far as building structures that would impose on other people's view. He continued to say that he does know that the landscaping of Dr. Hunt's residence violates the regulations and laws at hand. The palm trees on the property are a great imposition. Dr. Quintero stated that there is at least 20 palm trees or more on Dr. Hunt's property. He said he hopes that the Commission takes seriously the message he is trying to convey. Commissioner Alberio asked Dr. Quintero how many trees does Dr. Hunt have in his backyard. Dr. Quintero responded about 35. Commissioner Byrd asked Staff if it is allowed to have 161 trees in the Coastal Setback Zone. Ms. Silverman responded as long as it does not impair views. She continued to say all landscaping shall be maintained so that no tree or group of trees significantly obstruct views from adjacent properties. Commissioner Hayes added that the Code further states that no tree shall be planted in any location on a lot that can reasonably be expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline. Commissioner Alberio referred to a case on Via Campesina and explained the difference between lacing of those trees because of the view impairment and these palm trees which are tall and thin. He didn't feel there is any view impairment in this case. Discussion ensued among Commissioner Alberio and Commissioner Byrd and Dr. Quintero regarding the view impairment according to Mr. Rennick's photos. Mintira Sharma, 6490 Seacove Drive, RPV, CA stated that she agrees with her husband, Dr. Quintero and Mr. Rennick regarding the trees and the view impairment. Her concerns center around the drainage system and how the water drains into her yard. There was a discussion at length among the commission and Mintia Sharma regarding the fencing and the trees that are causing the view impairment. Bill Samole, 32701 Via Palacio, RPV, CA stated that Mr. Rennick did an excellent job in photographing his view which is similar to his. But now the trees are starting to grow above the houses and are consuming over half of the ocean view. George Hillyard stated that Dr. Hunt does not want to block anyone's view. He continued to say that with the landscaping plan being developed between Dr. Hunt, himself and the Staff, he feels confident that the tree issue can be resolved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 14 Chairman Katherman stated that the biggest issue he hears tonight is view blockage. He continued to quote the CUP conditions of approval saying all landscaping including parkways trees, shall be maintained so that no trees or group of trees significantly obstruct views from adjacent properties. Mr. Hillyard said he thinks the objective of the Commission is to be fair for everyone. RECESS A five-minute break was called at 10:56 p.m. Mr Hillyard proposes that in the front and backyard they will maintain the palm trees so they will not exceed the ridgeline, to preserve the view. Commissioner Hayes stated that Mr. Hillyard did not mention removing the trees. She said that a good number of these palm trees need to be removed in order to allow view corridors and open space. Mr. Hillyard responded that they will withdraw their request for modification of that condition of the Conditional Use Permit. Discussion at length continued among the Commission and Dr. Hunt and Mr. Hillyard regarding the palm trees located in the backyard and how to maintain or remove them. Dr. Quintero stated that these view impairing trees were placed in violation of the existing Conditional Use Permit. These trees are definitely a view impairment and will continue to be as long as they are allowed to be there. Dr. Quintero stated that he hopes the Commission follows their obligation and denies this project. Ms. Sharma addressed the Commission and added that Dr. Hunt's palm trees have already taken their view so she does not know what he can do at this point to resolve that problem. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Alberio stated he would prefer that the Conditional Use Permit prevent any drainage from Dr. Hunt's property to run into Dr. Quintero's property. There is the issue with the rear yard fencing and the public access to the coastal zone. He does feel that the Hunt's have to protect their property from that public access. As far as the trees are concerned, he said Dr. Hunt is willing to compromise and keep the palm trees at a 161 height. Commissioner Byrd stated that he wants to find a resolution for this application tonight. He feels that these situations occur because the contractors aren't usually aware of what the rules are. Sometimes contractors do what the owners want them to do and go ahead with it without checking with the City. In many cases it ends up neighbor against neighbor. Mr. Byrd added that he would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 15 14 like to see this project finished. He agrees with Staff's recommendation regarding the sauna. In terms of what has to be done in the Coastal Setback Zone, he does not agree that the walkways are considered slabs according to the policy Memo/Development Intent - Section 17.34.060 D dated July 11, 1990. He considers them patios rather than sidewalk. He does not understand why the walkways have to be removed and the walls can remain. He feels the walkways should remain. Ms. Silverman agreed with Mr. Byrd in that if the walkways are allowed in this property they should be allowed on in other properties. The intent of the Coastal Specific Plan is very specific in its description about what is permitted in the Coastal Setback Zone. It discourages decorative materials such as concrete walkways and modification to track fencing. Ms. Silverman continued to comment on landscaping and vegetation. She added that by allowing these improvements, we will be degrading the quality of the Coastal Zone and for these reasons Staff has recommended against it. Commissioner Byrd asked Staff what views are obstructed from the adjacent house. Ms. Silverman responded that there is significant view impairment from the kitchen, master bedroom, as well as one other side bedroom and from the living room. Ms. Silverman then explained to the Commission her recommendations for the thinning out and possible removal of some of the trees. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he feels that there are too many "after -the -fact" applications coming to the Commission lately and this one seems to be the biggest one by far. He stated that there has been little concern about building in the Coastal Setback itself. Even though the landscaping, fountains and walls may look good, he doesn't like the idea of intruding into the Coastal Setback. He continued to say he thinks the palm trees should be removed because there is too much of a cluster now and would be hard to control. He thinks the sauna is fine with the handrailing. Chairman Katherman asked the Commission to testify to the fact that any conversations they had outside of the pubilc hearing has not influenced their decision on this matter. Commissioner Alberio, Commissioner Lorenzen, Commissioner Hayes and Vice Chairman Byrd made comments to that affect. Commissioner Hayes stated that she agrees with Staff that it would be punitive to remove the sauna at this point. She stated that she would like to see the handrailing placed there for safety measures. Ms. Hayes continued to say she wants a great many of the trees removed and wants the walkways removed also. She said she will go along with the idea of the garden walls because of the possibility PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 16 of disturbing the terrain, but the section of the wall that on the west side should be replaced with fencing that allows 90% light and air to pass through. She is concerned about the irrigation and why the drainage problem has been brought up. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 116, VARIANCE NO. 357 Commissioner Bayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio adopted P.C. Resolution No. 93-26 approving the request to allow the existing sauna structure to remain as constructed and allow the applicant to install a handrail to the minimum height allowed by the UBC and use the roof of the sauna as an open patio area. No overhead shade structure, either permanent or temporary or any other enclosure shall be permitted. (5-0) COASTAL PERMIT NO. 117, VARIANCE NO. 358, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 71 - REVISION "D' Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to conceptually approve irrigation, minor grading and rear yard fencing and modified walkways, landscaping and side yard fencing. P.C. Resolution will be back September 28, 1993. (5-0) The meeting adjourned 12:09 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 17