Loading...
PC MINS 19800407go 9-) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Ad3ourned Meeting April 7, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Bacharach, Hughes, Hinchliffe LATE ARRIVALS: Brown, McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber and Associate Planner Richard Thompson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of March 25, 1980, were approved with the following amendments: page 5, paragraph 6, line 2, should read "...mounted in adobe colored structures."; page 5, para- graph 15, last line, should read "...felt it was justifiedbecauseit was on a major..."; and page 6, 10th complete paragraph, last line, should read "...should ever be permitted..." CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 57 Mr. Thompson said -the request was for Reservoir No. 20 - Crest Road the construction of a water pump sta- at Eastfield tion. He said pursuant to the Commis - Applicant: California Water sion's request at the last meeting, Service Company staff changed the wording of condition #1. He said after further review of the noise standard imposed by condition #3 and after reviewing other information concerning noise levels and stand- ards, staff changed the level to 55 dB(A). He said, however, that this morning the Los Angeles County Office of Noise Control was contacted, and he presented to the Commission the wording suggested by that office. He noted that the applicant had not been made aware of this newest suggested wording prior to tonight's meeting. Staff recommended that the Commission choose one of the standards presented or not require any standards for con- dition #3 and approve this request subject to the draft resolution and the attached conditions. Dr. Brown arrived at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Hughes felt it made more sense to go with the wording in the resolution as he felt there would be no way to check for compliance with the County's suggested wording. Chuck Nollenberger, applicant, said he discussed the 55 dB(A) with the engi- neer and they felt it could be met. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 80-4, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 57 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: McTaggart *kL, Ax-�-c e. Mr. Hinchliffe advisedAof the right to appeal this decision to the City Coun- cil within fifteen calendar days. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11896 Mr. Thompson said at the last meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 52 the Commission requested information West side of Palos Verdes Drive concerning proof of access, a condi- West at City boundary tion for roadway maintenance, and a Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Kildiszew view analysis. He said the applicant submitted to the City a copy of the grant deed which provided an access easement to the subject property. He referred to a map illustrating the location of the easement which was attached to the staff report. He said condition #6 of the conditional use permit resolution requires the appli- cant to perform all required repairs of the roadway as a result of damage during development of the property. He said this morning staff went back to the site and, as a result of another view analysis, the elevation of the house on Lot A was reduced 3 feet. He said as such, only a small portion of the ridgeline would be seen. He said tonight's exhibits had been re- vised to show the new elevations. Staff felt the homes had been designed and cited in such a way as to minimize view obstruction from surrounding properties and maximize views from the homes. Staff recommended waiver of the 30 percent common open space requirement and approval of the project subject to the draft resolutions and conditions. He proposed some changes to Exhibit "A" of the conditional use permit resolution, adding additional wording to condition #3 and the addition of condition #7; and to Exhibit "A" of the tentative parcel map resolution, deleting wording in conditions #4 and #5. Mr. Hinchliffe said technically the public hearing was closed but that the Commission would allow for public participation if anyone had any comments to make. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 8:00 p.m. Dick Kildiszew, owner of the property, 1736 Chelsea Drive, Palos Verdes Estates, expressed concern about specific obligations and the burdens of responsibility and he requested clarification of several tentative map con- ditions. He was concerned about conditions #7 and #14 concerning easements and wondered about putting the easement on the south side rather than the north side, particularly in light of condition #16. Re condition #9 he wondered who paid for the fire hydrant and who would be served by it. Re condition #10 he wished to see the master plan which he felt necessary for an equitable solution. He questioned condition #18 concerning clearances. He asked about the dollar commitments referred to in condition #19. He felt there may be some overlapping between conditions #22, #26, and #27. He felt they already submitted the information referred to in condition #23. He was concerned about the word "significant" in condition #24 and felt it should be specifically identified. He expressed concern with conditions #26 and #27 and said he felt as if the City was asking for an open check. He felt the costs would be tremendous and questioned whether or not it was equitable. Mr. Hinchliffe said many of the requirements were a function of law imposed by the State Subdivision Map Act and that the City had no choice in the matter. 0-t, Mr. Weber recommended that the applicantAcontact the City staff e-r_4!_s for a description of each condition with which he was concerned. Mr. Hinchliffe pointed out that these were standard requirements placed on all division of land applications. Don Hendrikson, architect, said since the last meeting they worked on the view factor and made every effort to minimize view obstruction. He said the house was designed to be pushed into the hill and today they lowered it another 3 feet. He said there would be a lot of grading and retaining walls to accomplish this. He said the homes were proposed to be 9000 square feet and 6800 to 6900 square feet. 4/7/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Clark Wiedmann, 30032 Palos Verdes Drive West, expressed appreciation for the time and effort extended by staff and the applicant to minimize view obstruction, but said he was still concerned that the project would block some of their ocean view. He said he was also concerned about the wide open space area and wondered about the possibility of further development of the site in the future (i.e. subdivision). Mr. Weber said the property could be developed further only if the zoning changed which he felt was unlikely. Eleanor Wiedmann said the value of living where they do is the view of the ocean in such close proximity. She said lowering the structure 3 feet made a tremendous difference but wished they could find a way to lower it a little more. She wished they could be assured that they would not lose their view. Mrs. Bacharach asked the elevation of the berm of the highway, and Mr. Thompson said it was between 265 and 268 feet. Mr. Hendrikson said it was 264 feet along the west side of Palos Verdes Drive West. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the accuracy of the view analysis. Mr. Thompson said he raised the red flag up 6 inches higher and put the house a little wider than it would actually be to allow for some margin of error. He said the monuments he found were very accurate and pointed out that this was the second view analysis prepared. He said both of the analy- ses correlated. It was the consensus of the Commission that there was no problem with the access easement. Re view obstruction, Mr. McTaggart was concerned with how this project would look from the ocean side. He said a 200 -foot home would be an imposing structure on the coastline. He was concerned about the effect this project would have on the character of the area. Mr. Hughes felt there were ways to make the structure less imposing. Mrs. Bacharach said the structure was lower than 16 feet, based on the way the City measures height. Dr. Brown had no trouble with the view analysis and complemented Mr. Thompson on his effort. Mr. Hinchliffe said if the lots were existing today a person would be able to build to a higher ridgeline without a height variation. Mr. Thompson said the structure conceptually meets the Development Code, but that he had not yet considered the grading and retaining walls. Dr. Brown was concerned about setting the structure at a certain height when it may be feasible to lower the ridgeline even further than proposed. Mr. McTaggart said the coastal area was a precious resource and that great care should be taken concerning its development. He wondered to what extent the grading ordinance influenced the location and ridgeline of the house. He said the intent of the grading ordinance was to retain a natural appear- ance. Mr. Hendrikson said they tried to develop the lot logically and minimize the grading. He said he would hesitate lowering the structure further into the ground. He said perhaps the answer was to limit the size of the house, but felt it would not really be that imposing. He said he could understand 4/7/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- the concern if this was a postage size lot, but said this was a very large lot. He said he thought the intent of the grading ordinance was to minimize excavation and fill. Mr. Hughes said the grading could be significantly reduced by eliminating the swimming pool. He said he would rather see more grading than lose the view from Palos Verdes Drive West. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the applicant made an effort to respond to the concerns of the Commission. Dr. Brown asked if there would be further review of the structures at the time of grading and retaining wall review. Mr. Thompson said what the Commission approved would be basically what is built -as far as footprint. Dr. Brown said his concerns were satisfied. Mrs. Bacharach felt the City should not have zoned the area for one -acre lots if it did not expect this size home to be built there. She felt it was unreasonable to say that a 9000 square foot house was too big for a one -acre lot. She did not know, however, if everything had been explored as far as lowering the structure. Mr. Kildiszew said they were trying to build a house that blended into the area. He said there were other restrictions limiting how much the house could be lowered as it would require more grading and retaining walls. Mr. Hinchliffe said there were three members of the Commission who would like to further explore the issue of elevations. Mr. Thompson suggested that condition #2 of the conditional use permit may be changed to require the structures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at -a later date. Mr. Hughes said they could require that the footprint not be outside of that shown on the map and require that the ridgeline not exceed a fixed elevation, and in that way insure a margin of safety. He said if the final plans ex- ceed those bounds it would have to come back to the Commission for review. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt Resolution No. 80-5, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 52 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", amended as follows: Condition #2 was changed to read "...elevations of both resi- dences shall conform to the..... Commission. The maximum ridgeline of the residence on Lot A shall not exceed 235 feet and on Lot B shall not exceed 255 feet." Condition #3 was changed to read ..public right-of-way and neighboring properties. The landscape..." Condition 45 was changed to read "...no objection by the de- veloper to enter..... surrounding property owners to pay his fair share to maintain the private road in its pres- ent condition_" Condition #7 was added to read "That mit to the City an agreement to Attornev and recorded in the Cou the ap e appr ty of esoons licant shall sub- ved by the City os Angeles stat- ble to maintain 4/7/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 80-6, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 11896 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "All, amended as follows: Condition #4 was changed to read "...high velocity scouring action, drainage plans..." Condition #5 was changed to read "...sub]ect to sheet over- flow, drainage plans..." Condition #23 was changed to read "...dedicated to the City if included in the approved Final Development and Design Guidelines for subregion 1 of the Coastal Zone. If such 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 Coun- cil within fifteen calendar days. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by the Commission waived the 30 percent Section 9133 C. 1. since the patios quirement. w0j*`T-9 Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, open space requirement pursuant to and yard areas are in excess of the re- At 9:35 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35040 Mr. Weber said this item was last heard CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 51 by the Commission on February 12, at Palos Verdes Drive South @ Seawolf which time a number of issues were dis- Landowner: Calwah Development Inc. cussed. He said the result of the dis- Applicant: Young and Associates cussion was that the Commission wanted to see some alternative design concepts for the site. He said alternatives were submitted to the staff and were on display as alternatives A, B, and C. He said the designs were essentially based on the fundamental design criteria for the site; those being that the units be spread evenly over the site, that a single family character be maintained, that the lots be small but functional, that there be common open space adjacent to all units, that there be a common recreation facility, and that there be no through roads. He apologized for not providing graphics for the Commission and reviewed the alternatives. He showed an overlay of the last proposal and said alternative A seemed to be the most different of any of the alternatives except for the fundamental de- sign criteria. He said this alternative showed substantial open space in the interior of the project. Staff felt alternative A had fairly substantial positive aspects such as reducing the amount of roadway and reducing the required grading. He noted, however, that it did not provide as much view for all units. He said the primary reason for the trail would be to provide access to the recreation area. He said any of the designs could incorporate a trail but that it would be more difficult and would not be as uniform or 4/7/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- accessible to many of the units in the other plans. Re alternative B, he said the location of the recreation area would require a longer road leading into the parking area. He said the central portion of the plan was not much different but the roadways would be entering from a different location. He said alternative C was essentially the same plan as the last proposal except it was much more refined and better in terms of grading, unit location, etc. He said informal discussions with the Public Works Department indicated they had no concerns, but that they did suggest the possibility of combining some of the driveways to lessen any potential impacts. The Public Works Depart- ment felt a 36 -foot roadway was excessive and that 32 feet would be adequate. Mr. Weber showed typical floor plans, elevations, and sections. He said it was difficult to do a view analysis without more detailed information and without knowing which design to use. Staff recommended that the Commission discuss the alternatives and reach a consensus as to which alternative was preferred. He said there were many other alternatives or combinations avail- able. In response to questions of Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said of all the alter- natives, staff felt alternative A would be the least impactive. In response to questions of Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Weber described several other alternatives, including combining alternative A and C. OL, Roy Young, architect and applicAlt, 118 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, said the idea of using the 8 -unit parcel on alternative C and combining it with alternative A was a good one. He said they could extend the cul-de-sac slightly with a big planter in the middle. He said they could develop any one of the three alternatives or a combination. In response to questions of Mrs. Bacharach, Mr. Young said the bulges in the trail were little planting areas and that the trail would be concrete or asphalt. In response to a question of Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Young said they would be agreeable to moving some units closer to Palos Verdes Drive in alternative A. He said the advantage with alternative A over the others was by pushing the street up and entering it higher, they can eliminate some of the cut. Russ MaguireAsaid the most critical issue to him was for condensing the driveways. Mr. Young said combining the driveways would be fine. In response to questions raised during Commission discussion concerning parking, Mr. Weber agreed with Mr. Hughes that a special parking area for the recreation facility, which would only serve this development, was not really necessary. Re grading, Mr. Weber said roads usually govern the amount of grading necessary for a site. It was the consensus of the Commission that the design be a combination of A and C, with the following modifications to the driveways: elimination of the drives on Seahill and Seawolf, and combination of the drives on Beach - view; and with relocation of one or more of the units closest to the drive, depending on the view analysis. There was concern about the access and location of units of the Mercury Enterprise development as it related to this development. It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminte the parking in the rec- reation area. Mr. Weber said he would need grading information before he could do a -view analysis. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. 4/7/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Mr. Thompson said this item was contin- Fences ued from the last meeting. He said the fence code amendment proposes two amend- ments: #1 which the Commission reviewed at its last meeting and on which he clarified some of the language for to- night's meeting; and #2 which was provided for the Commission's review this evening and was described in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission review the alternatives presented and choose one for further staff analysis, and that the public hearing be continued. Mrs. Bacharach asked if there had been any input from the Council of Home- owners Associations. It was noted that there was no one present to speak on this item and there had been no input so far. In response to a question of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson said the separate issues of this code amendment could be referred to as A and B instead of 1 and 2 to avoid confusion. The Commission agreed with that change. Mr. Hughes said he was still -opposed to tall fences and walls in the front yard setback, decorative or not. He felt the ordinance was written with a purpose in mind and found it difficult to change the -ordinance simply because there have been a number of violations of the -ordinance. He said he had difficulty trying to justify building a 6 -foot fence of any kind along the sidewalk or property line. He felt the current ordinance reflected what he would like to see in the way of fences in the City. Mrs. Bacharach said currently a variance is required for fences exceeding 42 inches in the setback area and this amendment would give an opportunity to allow higher fences with a minor exception permit. She felt the proposed amendment would not allow more than is allowed now, that it would just change the procedure and make it easier for the City to process. Mr. McTaggart felt a good portion of the proposed amendment was not necessary, particularly that concerning the types of materials which may be used. Re the height of fences, he suggested perhaps a sliding scale from the property line instead. He did not see the need for a major change in the ordinance. I Mrs. Bacharach asked theAcriteria used for decisions on minor exception per- mits. Mr. Weber said the criteria used was whether or not the project would ad- versely impact the neighbors. Mrs. Bacharach felt the proposed amendment was more realistic. She said there was a lot of very nice decorative fencing. She did not find it ob- jectionable and felt it would give the City a vehicle to control fencing. She said it was impossible to make variance findings for any fence because no fence is necessary for the preservation of a property right. She felt fences should require a permit, but not a variance. Dr. Brown was not in favor of ending up with a series of fences at the prop- erty line, decorative or not. However, he felt the minor exception permit process was better to control the fences under the present regulations. Mrs. Bacharach did not feel there would suddenly be a proliferation of fences just because the ordinance changed. Mr. Hinchliffe said he drove around the City and adjacent cities over the weekend and was not in favor of making a change. He said he did not see the need and felt the term decorative was very subjective and would lead to many problems as to what is or is not a decorative fence. He was not in favor of a Code that would allow additional fencing in the front yard set- back or other areas. 4/7/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- • Mr. McTaggart suggested discussing areas in the present Code which the Commission felt were objectionable. Mrs. Bacharach did not feel the Code fit the Miraleste area. She said that was the area where the violations were occurring. Dr. Brown discussed the issue brought up by Mr. Hughes at the last meeting concerning fencing on properties which run street to street. In response to a question of Dr. Brown, Mr. Weber said Section 9612 of the Code discussed setbacks and there was a 50 percent reduction of setbacks for hillside lots. He said perhaps that same reduction applied to the fence section and that he would check that out with the City Attorney. He felt the philosophy of the hillside setback was that there are problems associated with hillside lots re access, etc. He felt the same philosophy might carry through to the fence section. Re staff granting a minor excep- tion permit up to the property line, he felt it would be difficult, mainly because of visibility. He said that would be one of the main issues which staff would have to consider. Mr. McTaggart felt changing to a minor exception permit process was reason- able. He said when the Codes were written it was made very clear that the City wanted to create an open effect and not bring everything in close to the road. He said the whole character of the City would change if everyone built a fence right up to the property line. He suggested recommending to the City Council that the City apply the hillside front yard setback reduc- tion to fences. Mrs. Bacharach felt that was a very constructive suggestion. Mr. Hughes said even the County code does not permit fences exceeding 42 inches within the front yard setback because of its potential for causing traffic conflicts at corners and at driveways. Dr. Brown suggested that they retain the present fence ordinance as it stands with the exception that they recommend that Council look into apply- ing hillside standards to fences as is done with Section 9612 C. 2. Mr. Weber said the Commission could just change the words in Section 9621 B. to say "...unless identified somewhere else in this Code, a minor exception permit shall be required..." Dr. Brown suggested that Mr. Weber come back to the next meeting with appro= priate wording. Mrs. Bacharach asked about addressing where the property line is measured on a private street. She said the Code does not address that. Mr. Weber said staff has consistently interpreted setbacks as being from the easement line. He agreed it should be clearly stated in the Code. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with Dr. Brown's suggestion that staff come back to the next meeting with some proposed language to reflect what the Commission would like to see. Mr. Thompson said the entire fence ordinance could be rewritten into a clearer format and staff was suggesting that be done. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with clarifying all the language. Mr. Thompson asked about the second part of the proposed amendment. The Commission discussed the method used in Rolling Hills Estates with mini- mum separation. Mr. Hughes said in effect that would create a 1:1 slope. He said if the City did not create anything greater than a 35 percent slope, perhaps they 4/7/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- should allow only 42 -inch high walls with 10 -foot spacings between them. In looking back, he said the issues they had the most difficulty with were chain link fences on top of retaining walls and the point at which the wall was measured, particularly on downsloping lots. He said putting fences on top of 6 -foot walls creates a very high structure. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested setting a lower height limit. The Commission dis- cussed setting the limit at 6 feet rather than between 6 and 10 feet. Mr. Hughes said 10 feet was to accommodate tennis courts. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if it would be helpful to the staff to limit the height to 6 feet and require a minor exception permit to exceed that. Mr. Weber felt that would be reasonable, but said 8 feet might be more appro- priate. He said the way the Codes are now, an 8 -foot retaining wall could be constructed on the property line on an uphill lot. He said, in fact, that with a slope between two houses where one is an uphill condition and the other is a downhill condition, it was possible to get a total height of 172 feet on the downhill side lot. He said there could be an 8 -foot retain- ing wall on the uphill lot, a 32 -foot retaining wall on the downhill lot, and a 6 -foot fence on top of that. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that staff and the Commission give some thought to the height limit. Mr. McTaggart suggested that there be some options for controling the situa- tion which Mr. Weber described. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Bacharach circulated a flyer she had received concerning a workshop at the University of California on the Subdivision Map Act and condominiums and stock cooperatives. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the Development Agreement distributed to the Commis- sion was a law. Mr. Weber said to his knowledge it was not a law right now. Mr. Hinchliffe did not think it was a law in California and knew it was not a law in Washington. Mr. Hughes said the article referred to Government Code, Section 65864. Mr. Hinchliffe noted that the article came from Western Cities, which covered California. Mr. McTaggart asked if Ellen Vanderlip had taken out any permits lately and said she was building something. Mrs. Bacharach asked about people renting from her. Mr. McTaggart said the house that he had mentioned several times on Abbotts- wood because of a truck parked in front and a buildi4qpermit that had been active for a year and a half is now up for sale and"av4%4 ne- o garage. He said the garage in front has now been converted to living area and the garage in the rear was already living area. He said the owner had taken out a permit to build a garage, converted it, and then got permission to convert the other garage. He said the property was under the name of Millie Armis, but did not have the address with him. ADJOURNMENT At 11:44 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, April 22, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 4/7/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9-