Loading...
PC MINS 19800122M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 22, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of December 11, 1979 were approved with the following amendment: page 3, paragraph 9, should read "...using a sign perpendicular to the road." On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and carried with Mr. Hughes abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of January 8, 1980 were approved as submitted. SIGN PERMIT NO. 85 6118 Palos Verdes Drive South Applicant: Abalone Cove Garden Supply Mr. Weber said no further action by Mr. Weber said the applicant called staff and requested to have his item removed from the agenda. He said the applicant indicated he would be removing the sign and, therefore, wished to withdraw his application. the Commission was necessary. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 27 REVISION Mr. Weber reviewed the background of Palos Verdes Drive South & Clipper this project which had been tabled by (Tract No. 32977) the Commission in order to allow the Applicant: Design Synthesis applicant to revise the structures. Landowner: Kenneth Wong He reviewed the revised plans and said staff could find no problems with the revised distance between structures since the smallest (12.5 feet) was more than the minimum distance allowed by Code. He said the distance between structures was less than the origi- nally approved version, but staff felt it was adequate. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the revisions to the structures, subject to the submittal of final site plans, floor plans, elevations, and grading, and revision of the landscape plan to include effective screening between unit #1 and Palos Verdes Drive South. Mr. Weber said in addition to the new plans which the Commission received, received by staff and on display was a newly revised plan for unit #3. Larry Davis, Design Synthesis, 2802 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, said they eliminated 3 feet along the south side of unit #1; and 2 feet along the north side of unit #2, reducing the grading as well as house size. He said they completely redesigned unit #3, reducing the floor area by 848 square feet and the grading by 10 cubic yards and also created a larger front setback of 17.5 feet from the second story instead of 16 feet and of 20 feet plus from the garage. On lot #4 they reduced the building size and the grading. He said there were 15 feet between the first house and the public right-of-way, which was common open space; 12.5 feet between units #1 and #2; 15 feet between units #2 and #3; 14.5 feet between units #3 and #4; and 6.5 feet between unit #4 and the adjacent property line. He said 0 u the total reduction in structure size was 1534 square feet for all four houses, and the total reduction in grading was 20 cubic yards. He said they still were requesting that submittal of the grading plan, etc., be permitted after recordation of the final map. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said lot #1 was 4928 square feet, lot #2 was 4922 square feet, lot #3 was 4704 square feet, lot #4 was 8022 square feet, and the common area was 46,220 square feet. He said the tentative map was approved in October of 1977. He said the required open space on a normal 8000 square foot residential lot was 47.5 percent. Mr. Davis said the floor areas included garages which totaled 551 square feet for all four houses. Mr. McTaggart said there was a large common lot and that this project was a Residential Planned Development. He said at the time of original approval the Commission's main concern was that the project appear as a normal sub- division. He said now the homes were much larger in size than originally intended. Mrs. Bacharach felt the project still seemed too intense but she was satis- fied with the setbacks. Mr. McTaggart felt flexibility should be allowed for the layout. He felt the structures were too large for the lots, but did not feel that with the additional setback space there would be a tunnel effect. Dr. Brown said it was the consensus of the Commission at the last meeting that the zero lot line on the north side was satisfactory, but that the Commission was concerned about the distances between the structures and the mass of the structures. He said he still had a problem with the mass of the structures, but otherwise felt the applicant had complied with the Commission's concerns. Mr. Hughes said when the Commission approved this project there was a great deal of discussion about potential impact of the structures on the views of surrounding residences, what should be done with the common open space, drainage and landscaping. He was concerned with putting the horse before the cart. He said they created lots for certain structures which apparently are not marketable and now they were looking at larger homes, nearly double in square footage. He said the homes no longer fit the lots and they were now being asked to shoe -horn these homes onto the lots. He wondered why the applicant did not request a revised tract map instead with larger lots. Mr. Hinchliffe said he was also somewhat bothered by the volume but felt the applicant had responded to the Commission's concerns from the last meeting. Mrs. Bacharach asked if It was possible to revise the tract map before it was finalized. Mr. Weber said there would not be enough time. Mrs. Bacharach felt the houses were too big and said the mass was discussed at the last meeting. She said the setbacks were much improved, but did not feel the structures were appropriate for the neighborhood and would be out of character. Dr. Brown agreed with Mr. Hughes' comments. He felt the applicant complied with the Commission's concerns in terms of setbacks, but that there was still a mass and compatibility problem. Mr. McTaggart said he was not concerned with the height of the structures relative to view obstruction, but was concerned with the narrowness of the structures relative to their height. He said that was what made it look like so much mass. He said he would vote in favor of the staff recommenda- tion. 1/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hinchliffe said he would vote in favor also. Mr. Hughes said the increase in the footprint was like adding two more homes of the size of the originally approved homes. Mr. Hinchliffe pointed out that there were apartments across the street. He asked the applicant if he wished to go back to the drawing board. Mr. Davis said they would not want to do that. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to approve the revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 27. Vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: Bacharach, Brown ABSTAIN: Hughes ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe explained that the motion failed because a majority did not vote in favor. He advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen days. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12404 Mr. Thompson said the request was for VARIANCE NO. 42 the subdivision of an existing 1.01 27865 Palos Verdes Drive East acre parcel into two parcels with a Landowner: John Martin 64.09 foot lot width proposed for one Applicant: South Bay Engineering of the lots instead of the required 90 feet. He said the zoning on the site was RS -2 and that it was within a "Q" District. He said the parcels were proposed to be 20,0000 and 23,877 square feet. He reviewed the required findings for the granting of a vari- ance and said staff was unable to make three of the required four findings. Staff recommended denial of the variance and parcel map since the required variance findings could not be made. If the Commission found it was able to make the required findings, staff recommended that prior to final ap- proval the applicant provide site plans illustrating the location and design of a residential structure on parcel #1 for review by staff and the Commis- sion, in order to determine whether the site was suitable for development, as required by the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Thompson referred to three letters the City received from neighbors, which had been included in the agenda packets. Mrs. Bacharach asked what the Map Act meant about suitability for develop- ment and wondered if that covered drainage. Mr. Weber said the County has reviewed the project and attached several conditions calling for the incorporation of a private sewer system to meet Building Code. Mr. Thompson reviewed the proposed plan which was on display. Mr. Hughes said the letters from the neighbors indicate soil problems. Mr. Thompson said when the letters were received staff contacted the County and there was no record of soil problems. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the Commission was to consider only the variance or both applications. Mr. Thompson said the Commission was to consider both applications, but that the first issue was whether or not the variance findings could be made. He felt more information was necessary re what could be designed for parcel #1 but did not feel it was necessary for the applicant to go to the expense of preparing drawings, etc., if the variance could not be granted. Public hearing was opened. 1/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Russ Maguire, South Bay Engineering, 304 Tejon Place, Palos Verdes Estates, said the owner was going to retain the existing home, thus making the vari- ance necessary. He said the position of the home makes the lot split more difficult to achieve. He said other property owners have been able to split their lots and that a suitable building site could be created. He said the variance procedure was developed because there were some projects that may not meet the letter of the Code but do meet the intent. He said everything requiring a variance is violating some zoning law and, therefore, does not meet the General Plan. He said using staff's logic, variances would never be granted. He said settling around the pool area was not a problem with land stability but rather improper wall construction. He said they will have to prove the location of the septic tank to the City and the County. He said the existing house is about 30 years old. John Martin showed the location of the existing cesspool on the map. He said he has lived there for ten years and that it was his intention to develop the new parcel himself. Don Gales, 27879 Palos Verdes Drive East, immediately north of the project site, said he had nothing to add to the objections stated in his letter but would respond to any questions of the Commission. He said there were five owners along the access road with similar size lots. He said the neighbors immediately north of him said the previous owners of the subject property (Parker) had previously applied for subdivision of the lot through the County. He said he had dug a third cesspool on his property, that it is adobe soil which does not perk. He was also concerned about loss of privacy. Mr. Bowman, 27649 Palos Verdes Drive East, to the east of the subject site, said the terrain was steeply sloping and that there have been major drainage problems from the subject property. He said there was seepage from the old cesspool down to his property, that it spreads out rather than down. Margaret French, 27601 Palos Verdes Drive East, said she was concerned about the aesthetic beauty, water run-off, inadequate drainage, slippage, and privacy. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes asked about the criteria for approving a parcel map. Mr. Thompson said there were findings concerning consistency with the General Plan, suitability of the site for development, etc. Mrs. Bacharach agreed with the staff report and said she was having trouble making the findings. She felt the project was not in keeping with what the rest of the neighborhood was trying to achieve. Mr. McTaggart felt the location of the house precluded splitting the lot and that the original intent must have been to have one -acre lots. He said he could not make finding A and did not feel the placement of the house was extraordinary. He felt the placement was probably to exclude splitting the lot. He said the property was purchased with the house in its present loca- tion and he, therefore, felt any hardship was self-imposed. Mr. Hughes felt the Commission should pursue the parcel map request to deter- mine if it could be approved. He felt he might be able to make the findings for the variance. Dr. Brown agreed with Mr. Hughes and said the two applications were part and parcel of each other. He said dealing with just the variance, however, he could not make findings A or B but could make findings C and D. Mr. Hinchliffe said at least three members of the Commission were unable to make all of the findings for the variance. He felt if the Commission could not make the variance findings there was no point in looking at the parcel map in any depth. 1/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to deny Variance No. 42 because of the Commission's inability to make findings A, B, and D for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. McTaggart felt the wording in the staff report for finding D was poor and essentially meant that no one could ever obtain a variance. Mrs. Bacharach proposed amending the motion to remove finding D, and Mr. Hinchliffe concurred. Mr. Hughes felt the Commission was doing a disservice if the applicant left tonight thinking that if he can solve the lot width problem the parcel map would slide through. Roll call vote on the above amended -motion to deny Variance No. 42 was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown felt Mr. Hughes' concerns were valid and said staff only has pre- liminary information on the parcel map request. Mr. Weber recommended that the Commission's final action be to deny both the variance and the parcel map. He said staff could come back with a reso- lution at the next meeting dealing with both. Mr. Hughes felt the request for the lot split should be pursued further. Mr. Maguire said it would cost from $2500 to $5000 for a geology report. He said the majority of issues brought up tonight revolved around that report. RECESS At 10:03 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:08 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Maguire suggested that since the variance had been denied it would not be appropriate to require the applicant further expenditures of such a sig- nificant amount to supply the Commission with information on the parcel map. He said the applicant wished to appeal the Commission's decision on the variance and suggested that the parcel map be tabled until the outcome of the variance request is determined. He said if the applicant is successful with the appeal, they would come back to the Planning Commission on the parcel map with the necessary information. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, Tentative Parcel Map No. 12404 was tabled. Mr. Hinchliffe explained that without the appropriate information the Com- mission could not make a decision on the parcel map and did not wish to burden the applicant with additional expenses in obtaining the necessary information at this time. Therefore, the Commission had no alternative but to table the parcel map. Mr. Weber said staff would prepare a resolution on the variance decision for the next meeting and pointed out that a decision must be made on the project by August 3, 1980, per State law. Mr. Hughes asked about public notification for the City Council hearing on the appeal. Mr. Weber said the appeal would not necessarily be noticed, only if the Council chose to hold a formal public hearing. 1/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- 0 STAFF REPORTS as stated in the January 11 staff 11 Mr. Weber said the California Coastal Commission certified the City's Local Coastal Program today with conditions, report. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown asked the Commission's feel- ings about having a Commission member present at the City Council meetings when there is a Planning Commission item on the agenda. He said there have been cases where he felt it could have altered the Council's decision. It was the consensus of the Commission that someone from the Commission should attend the City Council meetings when a Commission item is on the agenda. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the security lights located below the eaves on homes along Rockinghorse Road. She said they were almost like tennis court lights and felt it would be worthwhile for the Commission to check them out to see if the wattage is too high. Mr. McTaggart said it might be metal halide lighting. Mr. Weber said if a complaint was issued, staff would have to establish if the lights were installed prior to the City's Code and, if so, would have to check on the County code. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Weber said the Code Inspector goes out on week -ends about once a month. Mrs. Bacharach felt it was important that the Environmental Committee al- ways be informed of projects that the Commission is considering in the area of project sites of any environmental impact reports under review by that Committee. Mr. Weber said that information is presented to the Committee. ADJOURNMENT At 10:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, February 12, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. 1/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-