Loading...
PC MINS 197807110 6 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting July 11, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber and Assistant Planners Keith Turner and Charlie Jencks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES on motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of June 27, 1978, were approved with the following corrections: page 1, para- graph 3, line 7, last word should be "extraordinary"; page 2, third full paragraph, line 2, should read "excellent"; page 4, paragraph 2, add, "Dr. Brown noted that the present code in Rolling Hills Estates requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of leasable area in the CG District."; page 4, paragraph 9, line 5, first word should be "built"; page 5, last paragraph, condition #1, line 2, last word should be "conformance." GRADING APPLICATION NO. 285 Mr. Jencks reviewed this grading re - 3300 Crownview Drive quest for the construction of a split Applicants: John Braswell and level residence on a downsloping lot. Henry Weichmann He said the average slope was 55 per- cent and the proposed grading would be on a slope of approximately 71 percent. He discussed the access, lot square footage, and said all of the proposed grading would be contained under the structure and was necessary for develop- ment. He reviewed the criteria for grading approval and said it was staff's opinion that the subject proposal minimized the disturbance to the existing slope. Staff recommended approval of the project. Jack Remington, 304 Vista del Mar, Redondo Beach, representing the appli- cant, discussed the proposal and answered questions of the Commission. After a brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 285 was approved. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 286 Mr. Jencks reviewed this request for 27 La Vista Verde grading of a corrective nature to Applicant: S. B. Barnes & Assoc. occur on a slope adjacent to a private easement. He said the net result would be a recompaction of the subject graded area and a finisheslope of 47 percent. He said it is theorized that by cutting to bedrock and with comprehensive recompaction practices, the weak section would be stre*hened. He said the driveway shown on the proposed drawing would be eliminated. He reviewed the Code criteria and said it was staff's opinion that this remedial grading activity does not violate the intent of the Grading ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the project with the condition that revegetation of the proposed 47 percent slope be accomplished in order to mitigate any adverse effects from soil erosion which may occur after the project is completed. Bob Spracklen, S. B. Barnes and Associates, representing the applicant, discussed the proposal and answered questions of the Commission. He said the two problems were that the earth is not compacted and the circular driveway had been previously graded. After a brief discussion, on motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 286 was ap- proved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant submit a landscaping plan for approval by the Director of Planning. 2. That adequate erosion control measures for the graded slope be implemented within thirty (30) days of the completion of the approved grading activity. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 Mr. Jencks reviewed this request to Lot 7, Tract 27832 (Indian Valley) change the General Plan Land Use Map Applicant: Charlotte Ferris from its current designation of Resi- dential 2-4 dwelling units per acre to Residential 12-22 dwelling units per acre. He explained that during the preparation of the General Plan the northwest side of Indian Valley between Hawthorne Boulevard and Firth - ridge was identified as a problem area because this strip had developed as a multi -family enclave in a predominantly single family neighborhood. He said the applicant submitted a request for the City Council to consider initiation of a General Plan Amendment and that said request was granted on July 19, 1977. He reviewed the project and area description as shown in the staff report; the amendment procedure; and project considerations, such as land use compatibility, environmental issues, and the visual im- pact. He presented photographs to the Commission. Staff recommended that the General Plan be amended from the current land use designation of Resi- dential 2-4 dwelling units per acre to Residential 6-12 dwelling units per acre. Mrs. Bacharach asked about archaeological resources. Mr. Jencks said none are known to exist and that whatever may have been there before must have been disturbed when the initial grading took place. The public hearing was opened. Charlotte Ferris, 613 Camino de Encanto, Redondo Beach, said her lot was purchased several years ago as R-3 property. She said when the multi - units were erected they were done all at once and she felt it was obvious that the intent was for the adjoining property to be developed in the same manner. She felt it was economically unfeasible to build one or two units because at this point it would be unsaleable. Re the existing multi -units she wondered what could be replaced on those lots under the current zoning should those buildings burn down. Mr. Weber said they were considered to be legally non -conforming, and if the buildings burned, any reconstruction must meet the current standards and zoning. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart asked how many units were proposed when the property was pur- chased. Mrs. Ferris said she proposed to construct four units. Mr. McTaggart did not feel four units could be constructed and still meet the off-street parking requirements without going three stories. Mrs. Bacharach asked the height of the existing surrounding structures. Mr. Jencks said they appeared to be about thirty feet in height and all are two stories. Mr. Hughes asked how many parking spaces a three -unit structure would re- quire. Mr. Weber said a three -unit structure would require six spaces of which three must be covered and two visitor spaces (which could be uncovered), for a total of eight spaces. 7/11/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Dr. Brown asked the size of lots 6 and 8 and the number of units on each. Mr. Jencks said lot 6 was 14,280 square feet and lot 8 was 13,835 square feet, and that each lot contained four units. Mrs. Bacharach felt it was not appropriate to build a single family home on the subject lot, but she did not feel the structure should exceed thirty feet. She felt the designation should be for 12 dw4t!lling units per acre or less. The other Commissioners concurred. Mr. Jencks noted a section of the Initial Study, which points out that if the subject site and the adjacent lots were zoned as applied for, it was plausible that the other multiple family lots on the same street (of which some are larger than the subject lot) could develop additional units on those respective lots. Mr. Hughes asked if all of those lots are being considered or just the sub- ject lot. Mr. Weber said for consistency, staff recommends changing the designation on lots 1 through 8. Mr. McTaggart was concerned that a description of all the lots was not in- cluded in the staff report. Upon checking the file, staff determined that notification was given only to property owners within a radius of 500 feet of lot 7. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to re -open the public hearing at a future date after proper notification is given. After considerable Commission discussion concerning the above motion, Mr. Weber said if the Commission wished to reach a consensus of approval on the request, staff would contact the City Attorney for his opinion on whether or not proper notification has been given. Mr. Weber said if it is determined that proper notice has been given, staff would present to the Commission at its next meeting a draft resolution with appropriate findings. If it is determined that further notification is necessary to meet the legal requirement, staff would re -notice the request for the first possible meet- ing. The above motion and second were withdrawn. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the Commission conceptually approved a recommendation to the City Council to amend the General Plan from the current land use designation of Residential 2-4 dwelling units per acre to Residential 6 -12 -dwelling units per acre on Lots 1 through 8 of Tract 27832, based on the Commission's determination that the Single Family designation seems inconsistent with what is existing on the subject lots. Mr. Weber said he would advise the Commission of the City Attorney's opinion re the notification. Mr. Hughes advised the applicant to contact the staff re the City Attorney's determination. VARIANCE NO. 31 Mr. Turner reviewed the background of 30132 Via Borica this request to connect a detached Applicants: D. & A. Armstrong garage located at street level with a main house structure located on a pad approximately ten feet above the garage pad. He said the overall separation between garage pad and house ridgeline is thirty-two (32) feet, thus creating a two -foot conflict with the thirty-foot height ordinance. He reviewed staff's assessment of the applicability of necessary findings for a variance, and said staff's recom- mendation was for approval based on the ability to make all the necessary findings. The public hearing was opened. 7/11/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Desmond Armstrong, 30132 Via Borica, said there would be a spiral stair- case on one side of the three -car garage, which would allow the applicants to enter the house without climbing the exterior stairway currently leading to the house, thus enabling them to avoid carrying groceries, etc., into the house without having to go out in the rain. He said it would give them more space and create a more convenient entry into their home. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart said he did not feel the fact that the applicants could not directly enter the house from the garage could be considered a hardship or a right denied to the applicant and possessed by others. He said he was unable to make the findings. Dr. Brown felt there was a hardship involved. He said if it was shown that this pro3ect would create adverse impacts such as view obstruction, he might feel differently. Mr. Hinchliffe said he could not make finding A, as he did not feel this was an extraordinary or unusual circumstance. Mrs. Bacharach felt the addition would not increase the height of the home and would not block views. She said she could make the findings and felt this project did not violate the intent of the Code. She felt this parti- cular home was under a hardship because of the unusual configuration. Mr. Hughes said he had no difficulty making the findings as he felt the home represents an unusual circumstance. He said the height ordinance was adopted to prevent view obstruction. He said if the addition was not pro- posed to attach to both structures, there would be no code violation. He felt this was the type of situation for which the variance procedure was designed. - Mr. Hinchliffe did not feel the configuration was unusual as he said many other homes had the same type set-up. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to approve Variance No. 31, based on the Commission's ability to make the findings, as shown in the staff report. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, NOES: Hinchliffe, ABSENT: None Brown, Hughes McTaggart July 18, 1978, at a suggested Mr. Weber said the City Attorney had suggested meeting with the Commission prior to the City Council meeting on time of 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. Mr. Hughes said he would contact the other Commissioners for their input and prepare a list of questions for the City Attorney. The Commission agreed to meet at 5:30 p.m. on Jtly 18 to allow themselves time to review the list and prepare their discussions, and that the meet- ing with the City Attorney begin at 6:00 on that date. Mr. Turner reported that Mr. Iacono has submitted the letter with neighbors' signatures indicating their approval of the fence. He said the variance portion of the request would either be on the next agenda or the one follow- ing, depending on whether or not it was necessary to re -notice the item. COMMISSION REPORTS The Commission directed that Section 1 of Resolution P.C. 78-36, approving Variance No. 30, be rewritten and pre- sented to the Commission at its next meeting for the Chairman's signature. 7/11/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, -4- Mr. Hughes asked the status of Mr. Holtzman's tennis court. Mr. Weber reported that the court hearing was continued and that Mr. Holtzman is preparing to submit a variance application. Mr. Hughes said he would be on variation from July 22 to August 6 and, therefore, will miss the next meeting. Mrs. Bacharach asked the status of the Coastal Plan. Mr. Weber said -:staff was working to get all the revisions and graphics done to present to the City Council. He said the next Council work ses- sion has not been set, but the intent was to have the Plan completed this summer. Mr. Brown asked the status of the Antenna Ordinance. Mr. Hughes said the subcommittee had a meeting a couple weeks ago, and more meetings will be held. ADJOURNMENT At 9:35 p -.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, July 18, 1978, at 5:30 p.m. 7/11/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-