Loading...
PC MINS 19800226,96) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting February 26, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes (late arrival) McTaggart, Hinchliffe (late arrival ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planners John Emeterio and Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hughes arrived at 7:38 p.m. during discussion of the minutes. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of February 12, 1980 were approved with the fol- lowing amendments: page 3, 4th complete paragraph, line 2, should read "...Bacharach said and assured..."; page 3, last paragraph, line 8, should read "...type of lot was..."; page 4, 5th complete paragraph, should read "...moderate income housing."; page 6, 5th complete paragraph, line 4, should read "...couple of alternatives..."; page 6, 11th complete paragraph, line 1, should read "...designs on other projects in the past. She..."; page 10, paragraph 6, should read "...was opposed to flag lots and did not feel they were necessary."; page 10, paragraph 18, last line, should read "...tennis court on each lot be..."; and page 11, last paragraph, line 1, should read "...12:10 a.m. it was..." TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36345 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 49 Island View Drive (Lots 4-6, Tract 27090) Landowner: Island View Inv. Applicant: Hanson Ho quent to that meeting a revised plan which were on display. Mr. Hinchliffe arrived at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the applicant and staff were directed to further investigate the issues of grading, driveway surface treatment, pool location, and view. He said the Commission agreed that the site de- sign was acceptable if the above is- sues were resolved. He said subse- and tract map were submitted, both of Mr. Weber reviewed the revised plan and map. He said the grading had been included, the turf -block had been replaced with brick paving, drainage facilities were included, and minor modifications had been made to the pool entry, patio, etc. He said the tentative map was consistent with the site plan. He said the grading concept would move about 4,000 cubic yards of earth and utilize extensive cuts throughout the site in order to mini- mize street grades, minimize view obstruction, and provide a low profile as viewed from the east. He said the maximum cut depth would be 8 feet and fill depth would be 1 foot, mostly for landscaping and drainage pur- poses. He said the project had been pushed down lower into the hill and that the maximum created slope would be 40 percent. Staff felt the grading plan was acceptable given the site design, since it eliminated adverse con- ditions such as view obstruction, steep street grades, and overall building mass. Re the pool location, staff still thought that units 4 and 5 would be subject to some inconvenience, but dial not feel it would be great enough to require elimination of the pool or redesign of the project. He reviewed the view analysis which was on display, saying that where view obstruction would occur, in staff's opinion there was not a reasonable expectation of a view. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Conditional Use Per- mit No. 49 subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution, and that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 36345 subject to the draft resolution and conditions. Mr. Hinchliffe noted that the public hearing was still open and explained public hearing procedures. Hanson Ho, 13431 Pumice Street, Norwalk, answered questions of the Commis- sion. He said each unit would have an automatic garage door opener. He said the planter separating the driveway was to protect the slope and would be from zero to three or four inches high. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. It was the consensus of the Commission that there were no concerns with the grading, driveway surface, pool location, view analysis, or site design. Mrs. Bacharach aksed if they could add a condition for automatic garage door openers to be required. Mr. Weber said it could be added as condition no. 8 of Exhibit "A" of the conditional use permit resolution. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 36345 subject to the con- ditions of Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 80-2, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 49 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", amended as follows: condition no. 8 added, to read "All units shall be required to have and maintain in proper working order an electronic garage door opener for each garage door." Roll Call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. HEIGHT VARIATION 135 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said this request was for 28411 Golden Meadow Drive the construction of a first and second Appellant: Hagop Nazarian story addition to an existing home. He said it was determined by staff that the proposed project did not meet the requirements of the Code in that 1) the proposed structure was not de- signed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction and 2) the granting of this request could create a significant cumulative im- pact for the remaining properties in the area. He said staff, therefore, denied the project on January 24 and the decision was appealed on February 4. He said the Code indicates that cumulative impact shall be determined 2/26/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- by 1) considering the amount of view interference caused by the proposed structure and 2) considering the impact on view or views that similar de- grees of impairment would have on properties in near proximity to the ap- plicant's property. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal and thereby deny the project. He reviewed the drawings and photographs which were on display. Mrs. Bacharach asked if there had been any written communications, and Mr. Emeterio said staff had received four letters from neighbors. Mr. Hughes asked if there were alternate building approaches to provide expansion, and Mr. Emeterio said there were single story alternatives. Mr. Hinchliffe asked the basis of cumulative impact, and Mr. Emeterio said a series of similar impacts would create a domino effect. Hagop Nazarian, 28411 Golden Meadow Drive, said it was in consideration of view obstruction that they discarded alternate plans. He said the proposed plan extended only 7 feet toward the south and toward the ocean. He said they were adding 250 square feet on the first floor and 1200 square feet on the second floor, and that he needed office space to work at home and more room to accommodate his family and visiting relatives. He felt the proposed addition would beautify the house and increase the property value of the neighbors' homes. He said his home was currently the smallest one in the tract and that denial would create a hardship for his family. He said there were 23 two-story homes on Golden Meadow and many others on surrounding streets. He said the addition would also hide the two existing telephone poles in the rear of the home. He felt the project met the cri- teria in the Code and said it would not block any views. He presented photographs to the Commission and said he collected signatures from resi- dents on Lockvale and Golden Meadow. He presented additional photographs and said in several cases his home could not even be seen and, therefore, could not obstruct views. Dr. Brown asked how much square footage could be obtained if the applicant just extended the first floor. Mr. Nazarian said he was not sure, probably about 1200 square feet, but said that would block his neighbor's view. Mr. Agbabian, architect, said the Code states the structure should be de- signed to minimize view obstruction, not -eliminate it. He said they could add 1200 square feet on the first floor but that would block views. He said he drove up and down streets and from Lockvale he could not even see the applicant's home. He said they tried to adhere to the requirements and go with the wishes of the neighbors. He said there would be an 8 -foot set- back instead of 5 feet on the south side after the addition. Sylvia Nazarian said theirs was a small three bedroom house with no den. She said they wanted the addition so their family of four could have more room. She said right now her husband's office is on the dining room table, and that they often have visiting relatives. She mentioned the rising cost of housing and referred to the pictures showing no ocean view over their house. She said two of the four letters received by staff were inaccurate in that they referred to a 30 -foot height. She said it was obvious that they had not looked at the plans as the addition was proposed to be 22 feet high. Dick Gregarian, 317 East Fairview Boulevard #3, Inglewood, general contrac- tor, said he would do everything possible to make it as easy a project as possible. Edward Dubov, directly south of the project, said they purchased their home in 1963 mainly because of the ocean view and sunshine. He said this project would completely eliminate the light from their living room and kitchen and would interfere with their view. He said there was space for 2/26/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- a single story addition which would not block their light. He said he would prefer to have his view lost from a single story addition than lose the view, light and air from a two-story addition. Mrs. Dubov asked why the two-story addition was proposed for the rear of the home. She said all the others in the area were in the front. She also said there were no two-story homes on the street north of her house. Mr. Dubov said he spoke with other neighbors who were opposed but they did not come to the meeting. Mrs. Dubov said she could also have obtained signatures. Mr. Hughes said in that neighborhood he found it very difficult to justify staff's position, that it was difficult to see a potential for cumulative impact. He felt it was impractical to expect someone to -live in a home built 50 to 60 years ago and said people cannot afford to move. He said this addition was probably the least objectionable proposal and would least impact the adjacent neighbors. He felt a two-story structure was preferable in terms of impact, but said the Commission could require slight alterations to make it more amenable to the adjacent neighbors. Mr. McTaggart said he did not see significant cumulative impact and agreed that a second story addition would create less impact. He was receptive to Mr. Hughes' suggestion for conditioning the project. Mrs. Bacharach said nothing presented this evening showed cumulative impact. She was concerned about the high surrounding areas such as Hedgewood and Hartcrest. She felt Mr. Hughes' suggestion had merit. Mr. Emeterio explained the domino effect and said even if it was a small view it was considered a primary view. Mrs. Bacharach said at this point she would have to say there was cumula- tive impact. Dr. Brown said significant was the key word and that in his opinion this was not a significant cumulative effect. He also felt the project was de- signed and situated to minimize view obstruction. Mr. Emeterio said in staff's opinion it was significant. He said he did not go to the streets Mrs. Bacharach mentioned because he did not feel there would be a view interruption from there. Mr. McTaggart said if every house on the west side of this street was to propose a second story addition there might be three or four cases where there would be impacts and those projects should be denied. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with the majority of the Commission and felt Mr. Hughes' suggestion should be explored to minimize impacts to the neighbors. Mrs. Bacharach said if the applicant was willing to lower the ridgeline on the side yard and the Commission could determine there was no significant cumulative impact, she would agree to table the item to enable the appli- cant to explore alternatives. Mr. Hinchliffe explained to the applicant that the Commission disagreed with staff but was requesting the applicant to explore methods to mitigate impacts to the neighbors on the south. Mr. Nazarian requested that they discuss alterations now so that he would not have to come back again before the Commission. Mr. Agbabian said one solution would be to change the roof, that they could have a hip roof instead of gabled. 2/26/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to grant the appeal of the denial of Height Variation No. 135 subject to the condition that the roof have a hip configuration and that the hip be brought down to 17 or 18 feet, subject to staff approval. The Commission found that there was no significant cumulative effect caused by the granting of said application and that the proposed structure was designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 9:55 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12303 Ms. Lavitt said the proposed subdivi- 7 Mustang Road sion would allow for the creation of Applicants/Landowners: Mr. and a second lot for the future construc- Mrs. Knut Kleve tion of a single family residence. She said a decision must be made by July 3, 1980. She said the lot was located on the northeast side of the City bordering Rolling Hills and was zoned RS -2, which allows for a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. She said the general vicinity was a single family neighborhood with lots ranging upward from approximately 21,000 square feet. She said the project would allow for the creation of a new triangular 20,184 square foot parcel from an existing one -acre lot, by splitting the southeasterly portion of the lot. She said the proposed lot conformed to the Development Code re- quirements and the map conformed to the General Plan. She said the future dwelling, if reasonably situated on the lot, would not cause view obstruc- tion. She said the access would be off Mustang Road, a private street taking access off Palos Verdes Drive East. She said provision would have to be made to channel drainage toward the street or toward the natural drainage course, and that there are no known stability problems which would prevent development of the proposed parcel. She said since there was no public sewer system, an alternative method of sewage disposal must be provided. She said the project was in compliance with all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 12303 subject to the conditions found in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Yolanda Kleve, 7 Mustang Road, said she had recently obtained a divorce and the purpose of the subdivision request was to allow for an equitable settlement. John Bennett, 3 Eastvale Drive, Rolling Hills, submitted a petition from all of the people in the area who were opposed. He said they -were con- cerned about precedence. He said there were 14 neighbors present to speak on this request. He said they were concerned about the rural atmosphere. He said the one -acre lot included a portion of the street and the street was in common holding, not just by the property owner. He said the drain- age was not good, that it was mostly adobe which was not absorbant at all. He said the area was also in a "Q" District. He said under the County the street area was not included in the net square footage. Mr. Weber said a "Q" District did not affect residential development of the property. 2/26/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mrs. John Miller, 4 Rockinghorse West, said if drainage was directed to- wards the street, the street would completely erode. She was very con- cerned about drainage and said there was a gulch now, right next to this piece of property. She said all the other lots were one -acre or 3/4 -acre in size. Tom Stolpman, 4120 Lorraine Road, said this piece of property was an un- usual configuration. He said most of the homes in the neighborhood were old and had a certain architectural style. He felt if the subdivision occurred people would not be able to meet "Q" District standards. He felt the Commission should consider that this roadway was in disrepair and should preserve the neighborhood. Mr. Hinchliffe explained that if an application met all the requirements, there was no discretion on the part of the Commission. Mr. Stolpman said the project did not meet the General Plan. He said the property was in a "Q" District, which called for larger lots. He said the area was built up and the character was there already. Mr. Hughes asked if they had considered approaching the City Council about a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the area, as it sounded like the neighbors felt the area was not zoned properly. Bill Ryan, 2 Rockinghorse, concurred with the previous speakers. He said the neighborhood did not want this lot split. He was concerned about the heavy construction vehicles and also the domino effect as others followed suit. He was also concerned that the City was more lenient in counting square footage than the County had been. Mr. McTaggart said the City Attorney had made a decision to include the property to the centerline of the street. He said the Commission could not go against recommendations made by the City Attorney. He said rules were uniformly applied to all lots in the City. Mr. Hinchliffe explained that the Commission must deal with present Code and could not be arbitrary. He said the zoning called for 20,000 square foot minimum lots in the area. Public participation was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe said the concerns raised were lot size and measurement and drainage. Mr. Hughes said he would like the City Attorney's opinion relating to par- cel maps when there was a traffic problem, if that was a legitimate concern of the Commission. He also was concerned that the required setbacks were not consistent when there was a private street. Mr. McTaggart said it had been the City Attorney's opinion that the City was treating them the same way, that there was so much setback from a prop- erty line. He said he would prefer the drainage to go only to the drainage course rather than the street. Mr. Weber read the Code's definition of lot area, and said it has been the consistent decision that the lots are measured from lot lines whether there was a private street or not. Mr. Hughes said he would like a response from the City Attorney and would also like to know the County's methodology in terms of lot size. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the item was tabled to the next meeting in order to obtain the following in- formation from the City Attorney: whether road capacity was a consideration, and on the measurement of lots when there is a private road; and staff was directed to discuss the drainage issue with the County. 2/26/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Hinchliffe advised that there would be no further public notice. He said if the City Attorney had not responded by the next meeting the item would again be continued to another meeting. At 11:30 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 11:35 p.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 55 Mr. Emeterio said this request was for VARIANCE NO. 44 a two-story professional office build - GRADING NO. 403 ing with subterranean parking, with a Northwest corner of Crest Road maximum height of 26.5 feet. He said and Hawthorne Blvd. the variance was for a reduction in Applicant: K. T. Development, parking and landscaping requirements. Ali Parsa He described the surrounding proper- ties and said access to the proposed project would be from Crest Road via a 25 -foot wide driveway. He said input from Public Works indicated no problems with the ingress and egress and, in fact, the proposed access was preferable to access from Hawthorne Boulevard. He said a Negative Declara- tion was issued with required mitigation measures for potential impacts. He said the deadline date for a decision on this project was August 23, 1980. He said 2743 cubic yards of cut was requested to accommodate the subterranean parking structure. He said because of 40 feet of existing fill and an ancient landslide running through the middle of the site, the proposed structure was "L" shaped. It was staff's opinion that the retain- ing wall should be redesigned to step down gradually in order to eliminate the need for a secondary wall in the setback area along Hawthorne Boulevard. It was staff's opinion that the proposed backfill was acceptable but that the created slope should be reduced to less than 35 percent to give a more natural appearance. overall staff found the proposed grading plan accept- able since it was an attempt to lower the parking area so as not to be visible and lessen the overall effect of the proposed structure. The ap- plicant proposed 47 parking spaces instead of the required 78 spaces. It was staff's opinion that the proposed parking design was insufficient and should be re-evaluated and redesigned. Staff found no major problems with the 26 -foot setback instead of the required 30 feet, but felt no relief should be given to the landscape requirement adjacent to a residential zone. It was staff's opinion that the proposed use was acceptable but the proposed structure was too intense for the site. Staff felt re-evaluation of the structure was needed to provide a less obtrusive design with a better parking ratio. He referred to the most recent submittal which he felt softened the design. It was staff's opinion that there would not be a significant effect on views, as any structure on the site would interrupt the view. He referred to the geotechnical report for the site and noted that it had not been reviewed by the City Engineer. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, and require review and redesign of the proposed project in order to achieve more com- pliance with the Development Code re parking, landscaping, and setback re- quirements. Dr. Brown asked about the decrease in parking, as the environmental assess- ment indicated 54 spaces and the applicant is now proposing 47 spaces. Mr. Emeterio said they reduced the amount of parking in order to lessen the amount of encroachment into the Open Space Hazard zoning. Mr. Hinchliffe explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. Ali Parsa, 26724 Nokomis Road, one of the architects, reviewed the plans on display and discussed the project. He said they tried to reduce the effect of parking to the neighborhood and keep the structure low to avoid obstruction views. He said they were going to great expense to hide the parking. 2/26/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Dr. Brown asked if there were any problems with reducing the retaining wall and slope creation. Mr. Parsa said there was no problem. Charles Belak-Berger, 415 N. Broadway, Redondo Beach, one of the architects, said one of the major issues was the parking requirement. He said this would be a non-medical professional building. He said the reason for the encroachment was to grab at some very solid ground. He said the landfill was the problem because they could not get footings. Dr. Brown asked about staff's recommendation for landscaping. Mr. Belak-Berger said that was no problem. He said the net rental would be approximately 9000 square feet but that they could cut it down a little. Mr. Parsa said it was important that the project be developed two-story, otherwise it would not be feasible. Hal Henbest, 7127 Crest Road, president of the Monte Verde Homeowners Asso- ciation, submitted a petition of opposition to the project. He said his main concern was with the landfill problem. He said the structure was too intense a development for this location. He was also concerned about the close proximity of the access to the intersection and was concerned about visibility. Ed Gentry, 30130 Avenida Tranquila, said he was pleased about the proposal to hide the parking, but felt they were trying to optimize every square foot. He was not pleased with the design and felt it should be a Spanish style and lower to be more compatible. He was concerned about the traffic problem in that location. He felt there should be no variations from the Code. He said the project was not in keeping with the rural atmosphere. Parke Moewe, 30097 Avenida Classica, was very concerned about safety, con- sidering the traffic problems. He felt the development was inappropriate. Frank Sesno, 97 Cresta Verde Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, was concerned about view obstruction. Eugene Carver, 30032 Avenida Esplendida, was concerned about the traffic problems. He said there was no sidewalk on the north side of the street. He recommended not reducing the parking. He felt the project was too in- tense for the usable lot. Steve Zavitz, 30037 Avenida Esplendida was concerned about traffic problems. He pointed out this was a very foggy area. He was also concerned about view obstruction. Carol Kramer, 6810 Crest, felt the design should be lowered. Barr E. Rustin, 30009 Avenida Elegante, was concerned about traffic and the parking. He said there was poor visibility. He urged the Commission not to grant deviations from the Code. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mrs. Bacharach asked if this had been to the Traffic Committee and Mr. Emeterio said it had not. Mr. Hinchliffe said there was an intensity issue and whether or not the building was appropriate. Dr. Brown felt it was too massive. Mr. McTaggart agreed with the testimony that the project was out of charac- ter, too intense, and that its very size would create a considerable view 2/26/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- problem for the people across the street. He felt the mass of the building would create a loss of view, not just the height but the way the building would stick out on the corner. Mrs. Bacharach felt the proposal was too intense and inappropriate for the site. Mr. Hughes said there was a lot of testimony re the size of the structure, parking, and traffic problems, all related to too much development. Mrs. Bacharach felt the geology should be looked at. She questioned the validity of spending time on a project which may never be allowed to be built. Mr. Hinchliffe said the consensus was that the building was too large. He suggested the applicant consider a less intense use. He noted the parking could be met if the building was one story. He said the issue was the height of the building as it relates to view obstruction, setbacks, parking and traffic. Dr. Brown noted that the geology and traffic problems had to be resolved. Mr. Belak-Berger asked if the Commission would consider a two-story struc- ture if they reduced the square footage and changed the facade. Mr. Hinchliffe said yes, if it did not cause view obstruction. Mrs. Bacharach asked for more accurate information on geology. Mr. Weber said he would talk with the County. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hinchliffe said Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hughes were the Commission members on the Ordinance Subcommittee. He said he understood they were to meet with the City Council subcommittee and suggested a memo be sent to the Council stating who the Commission members were. Dr. Brown asked that the light over the Art Center be checked as it was shining all over Crenshaw. Dr. Brown expressed concern about the staff report for tonight's height variation request. He said the Commission should have received the letters and drawings in their agenda packets and hoped in the future it would be a lot tighter. Dr. Brown asked about the Holtzman case, and Mr. Weber said the City Attor- ney had it. ADJOURNMENT At 1:31 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 11, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 2/26/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9-