Loading...
PC MINS 19800422M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting April 22, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber and Assistant Plan- ners John Emeterio and Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of April 7, 1980 were approved with the following amendments: page 1, last paragraph, line 1, should read "...advised the audience of the right..."; page 2, paragraph 6, should read "...the applicant or his engineer contact the City staff for a description..."; page 3, paragraph 9, line 3, should read "...on the coast- line at the entrance to the City. He was..."; page 6, 3rd complete para- graph, line 1, should read ..applicant..."; page 6, 6th complete paragraph, should read "...Maguire, member of the Traffic Committee, 3905 Palos Verdes Drive South, said the..."; page 7, paragraph 8, should read "...asked the staff to describe the criteria..."; and page 9, 16th complete paragraph, line 3, should read "...and may have no garage. He..." TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35040 Mr. Weber said alternative site designs CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 51 were reviewed at the last meeting and Palos Verdes Drive South @"Seawolf it was the consensus that alternate "A" Landowner: Calwah Development,Inc. be further refined. He said pursuant Applicant: Young & Associates to Commission direction, the revised site design relocated various units, reduced the number of curb cuts, re- located the recreation facilities, eliminated the recreation parking area, retained the large central open space, and included a trail system. He re- viewed the proposed grading and said staff felt with some minor revisions the proposal would be acceptable. Staff was concerned with the location and orientation of some of the structures and recommended that the applicant re- locate those structures; and he proposed some changes to the interior road- way. He apologized for not completing the view analysis and discussed the preliminary review. Staff recommended that the Commission review the pro- posed site plan based on staff's comments on redesign and, if appropriate, grant conceptual approval. He said if conceptual approval is granted, staff would work with the applicant to make any required modifications and would prepare the appropriate resolutions and conditions, along with a final view analysis. Mr. McTaggart said one of the attractive features at the last meeting was the fact that the tennis court would be located in the middle of the site. He felt the Commission would not want to impose the tennis court on existing units. In response to questions by Dr. Brown, Mr. Weber said the units along Beach - view should have a minimum 20 -foot setback. He said the parking along Beachview would still be adequate. He said he discussed traffic with the Public Works Department and they had no problem with the number or location of curb cuts. Mr. McTaggart asked how many additional parking spaces resulted from the re- duction of curb cuts. Mr. Weber said at least 10 spaces. Public hearing was opened. Roy Young, architect, answered questions of the Commission and said he was agreeable to Mr. Weber's suggestion re roadway changes, the 20 -foot setback, and unit relocations. Re the location of the tennis courts, he said they had tried to obtain views from every unit possible and that there were no views from that corner. He said the trails now go between the tennis courts and the recreation building. Mr. McTaggart said he would have difficulty approving the current location of the tennis courts. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. Weber said lowering the roadway would bring it in line with the Mercury Enterprise development. It was the consensus of the Commission that there were no problems with the overall concept. Re the tennis court issue, Mr. Weber said in the past the Commission has expressed a number of times the desire to maximize views. He said the cur- rent proposal does maximize the views from within the site. In weighing the issues, however, he felt it was more important to relocate the tennis courts than to obtain views. Mr. McTaggart had no problems with the location of the recreation building or swimming pool, but was concerned about the tennis courts because of their potential impacts on existing developments. Mr. Hughes said he would rather see the tennis courts interchanged in some fashion with the recreation building. He felt there were two problems with formal conceptual approval at this time: one being that the Commission has not yet seen a view analysis; and two being that the public hearing was still open. Mr. Weber said it was only necessary that there be some consensus on the issues. Mr. Young said the cul-de-sac was meant to facilitate future development of two units on the Chevron site. He said if the tennis courts were moved to- ward Palos Verdes Drive those two future units would have impacts on their views. Mr. Hinchliffe said the Commission was suggesting that the applicant exchange the courts in some fashion with the recreation building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 31 REVISION Mr. Weber said attached to the staff (Tract 33206) report was a letter from the applicant San Pedro Hill - Crest Road (East) requesting that the Commission amend Applicant/Landowner: S&S Constr. Resolution P.C. No. 78-32 to allow for a two-year extension to the Workable Phase. He said Conditional Use Permit No. 31 was approved by the Commission on April 11, 1978 permitting the con- struction of a residential planned development consisting of 76 single family dwelling units. He said the tract map was recorded on October 22, 1979 and grading was to commence last month but that the changing economic conditions have necessitated a re-evaluation by the developer. He referred to an addi- tional letter from the applicant which was distributed to the Commission this evening suggesting two other alternatives. He said one alternative would allow for the foundation inspection within three years and an open 4/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- ended period in which to complete the project; and the other alternative would allow for the fouAtion inspection within three years and project com- pletion within eight years. He said with the wording proposed in the staff report the applicant would probably be back within two years for another ex- tension. He said staff had no problems with the first alternative as iden- tified in the most recent letter, with a minor word change replacing "dili- gently" with "actively." Staff recommended that the Commission consider the open ended approach rather than a specific time period. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said the basic philo- sophy. -for setting -time limits on planned unit developments was to insure completion of units or phases within a reasonable period of time. He said this particular project was different because it was more like a traditional single family subdivision and there was no time schedule for a standard sub- division. He said the City has approved some planned unit developments with an open ended time schedule. Mr. Hughes said the Development Agreement which was distributed to the Com- mission at its last meeting cautions cities to not enter into agreements that extend beyond three years. Mr. McCune, 926 Palo Verde, Long Beach, discussed the problems with today's market and the changes in the economy during the last six to eight months. Dr. Brown was uneasy with an open ended agreement and preferred the wording in the staff report. Mr. Hughes suggested re-evaluating the project. He said he was hesitant about long term commitments on the part of the City without some form of review. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to approve the amendment to condition #3 of Conditional Use Permit No. 31 as written in the April 22, 1980 staff report. Mr. McTaggart said there were impacts that occur during development and that although he would be willing to allow for a one-year extension, he felt four years was too long. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, Hinchliffe NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen (15) calendar days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 33 REVISION Mr. Weber said the request was for a Lot 5, Tract 32110 residence to be built outside of the Landowner/Applicant: Tim Burrell approved building footprint. He re- ferred to the chart in the staff report which compared the approved and pro- posed revision re setbacks and footprint square footage. In general, staff had no objections to the request. He referred to the memo from the Parks & Recreation Department, which was attached to the staff report, and he also referred to the letter and drawing supplied by the applicant and included in the Commission's agenda package. Staff recommended that the Commission review the information and approve the request to permit construction of a residence as propose. Mr. McTaggart said the proposal appeared to have a tunnel effect in the drawing. He said besides for fire purposes, setbacks are used to maintain/ provide light and air. 4/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, explained that the drawing supplied showed to the eave lines. He presented a model of the project to give the Commils- sion a better idea. He said at the most critical point the difference was 6 feet instead of 10 feet. Mr. Hughes asked about the mechanical building shown in the drawing, Mr. Burrell said it contained solar equipment and was small enough and low enough to be allowed under the Code. Mr. Hughes questioned the proposed lighting and recommended that staff check. intoit to make sure it meets the Code. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to revise Condi- tional Use Permit No. 33 in order to approve the request as proposed and presented to the Commission this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen (15) calendar days. RECESS At 9:27 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:38 pm. with the same members present. VARIANCE NO. 47 Ms. Lavitt said the request was to 12 Sweetbay maintain a six-foot green painted Applicant/Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. chain link fence installed along the Charles Tompkins front property line. She said the site was located on a private roadway and as such the actual front property line was to the center of the road; however, for purposes of establishing setbacks, staff has consistently used the easement edge as the point of measurement. She said the grade differential at the edge of the easement was approxi- mately 2, to 3 feet higher. She said on the south property line (front) the fence measured six feet in height and that the fencing along the east and west property lines exceeds six feet at certain points to approximately seven feet in height. She reviewed the applicant's basis for the request as stated in the staff report and reviewed the required findings and staff's evaluation as stated in the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the variance based on the lack of favorable justifiable evidence for findings A and B. Staff also recommended that the applicant be given 30 days to ini- tiate the removal of the fence or that the fence be modified to meet the Code. She referred to the sequence of events which was attached to the staff report. She said additionally a property owner of the area questioned the accuracy of the plans. Mr. Hinchliffe explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak on the matter. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued until after consideration of item C under New Business this evening to see if there was anyone present at that time to speak. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 142 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said the request was to 3632 Vigilance Drive construct a second story addition to Appellants: Dr. & Mrs. Y. Aelony an existing residence with a maximum height of 22 feet 10 inches. He said after careful consideration of the ap- plication and subsequent site inspections, staff determined that the pro- posed project did not meet the requirements of the Code. He said following 4/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- that determination, revised plans with a maximum height of 20 feet 2 inches were submitted but that again it was determined by staff that the project would significantly impair the primary view of at least one neighboring residence. Therefore, on April 2 staff denied the application and on April 3 a letter of appeal was received. He said the appellants' specific con- cerns were outlined in the appeal letters attached to the staff report. He reviewed the Code's definition of principle view and said the issue in this matter was the off -shore islands. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal and, thereby, deny the proposed project. Yossef Aelony, 3632 Vigilance, said the architects he consulted all sug- gested the proposed location for the addition because it would be more in keeping with the existing home. He said he selected this Particular archi- tect because examples of his work did not appear to be additions but rather blended in with the design of the homes. He said they discussed the plans with the neighbors and no one indicated any concern about view obstruction. He said it was not their intention to block the view of Catalina and that the revised plans would not obstruct that view. He said their addition would be seen but would not adversely impact anyone's view. He said they discussed the revised plans with the Sherwoods but received no response. He said they offered to assist the Sherwoods with their problem of view ob- struction caused by tall trees both on and off his property. He said the other tree owners were willing to allow them to pay for tree trimming ser- vices. He said he had a letter to that effect from Mr. Hollingsworth and that Mr. Burk agreed but was unable to write a letter as he was now out of town. Ray Sherwood, 3618 Vigilance, said their only view was from the rumpus room. He said the trees do impair his view slightly but not to any great extent. He presented photographs to the Commission and said the addition would cut off all of his view of the water which would ruin the overall effect of the view of Catalina. He said the project would obstruct one-third of his existing view. He said the applicant had one of the largest lots in the tract and felt there were alternatives such as building the addition on the ground level. He said he was also concerned about cumulative effect and re- ferred to the number of signatures he obtained from other neighbors who were opposed to the project. Diane Torrenteri, 3610 Vigilance, said the project would block some view and expressed concern about this project creating a snowball effect. Mrs. Aelony said the addition would not impair the Sherwoods' primary view. She said they could legally build up to 16 feet in their rear yard but said that would completely block their next door neighbor's view. Dr. Aelony said he did not have the opportunity to take his own photographs. He said they could not build on the other side of the house due to slippage problems. Mrs. Sherwood said there were no slippage problems in the area. Jerry Compton, architect, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, said the problem with constructing the addition in the area to the side of the house was that they would have to come up to within 2� to 3 feet of the toe of the slope which would cause problems. Mr. Hinchliffe asked the probable effect if the next door neighbors were to extend the ridgeline of their garage which was roughly 16 feet in height. Mr. Weber said it was difficult to determine since staff was not sure that the garage was 20 feet from the front property line nor was the existing height known. Mr. Hughes said it appeared that if the adjacent property was legally devel- oped, a 16 -foot structure would completely hide the proposed project. He said as he understood the ordinance, it was clear to him that there was no reasonable expectation of a view from the Sherwoods' residence. He said he 4/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- could not make the finding that there was a significant impairment of any primary view as he did not see a reasonable expectation of a view. Mr. McTaggart said the intent of the ordinance was to allow for reasonable development of property and disallow unreasonable encroachment on the views of others. Dr. Brown was concerned that the Commission did not have information on the pad elevations and felt there was a very significant difference in those elevations. He said there was no view impairment if the proposed structure was built to 20 feet 2 inches. Re cumulative effect he stressed that each case must be dealt with on its individual merits. Mr. Hinchliffe was not totally comfortable that the Commission had enough available information re the issue of the adjacent house and if it could legally impact the view to the extent that by definition the Sherwoods did not have a view and information on the pad elevations of adjacent houses to determine cumulative impact. However, based on the photographs and the available information he did not feel the 20 -foot 2 -inch proposal would sig- nificantly affect the view. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the item was continued to the next meeting. Staff was directed to prepare additional analyses of the pad elevations of the immediate adjacent homes; address cumulative effect; gather information about the ridgeline height of the neighbor's structure, the effect an extension of that structure (which meets the Code requirements with respect to height and setbacks) would have on the view, and prepare photographs with that drawn in; and to take photo- graphs from Seaglen. Re the offer to trim the trees causing view obstruction, Dr. Brown suggested having that in writing. The Commission directed staff to do a cross section to show the difference of the pad elevations, to show both a 16 -foot and 20 -foot setback on the neighboring house and garage and to what point they could legally extend. Staff was also directed to look at the effect to the next door neighbor's view if the addition was built at 16 feet adjacent to the house and to look at alternatives of the addition over the garage and determine whether or not there would be adequate room for an addition between the house and the bank. The Commission noted all of the requested information was concerning the addition at the revised height of 20 feet 2 inches. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 146 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said the request was for 26221 Basswood the construction of a second story Applicant: Jay Gentry addition to an existing residence. He Appellant: Donald Tagawa said after consideration of the appli- cation and subsequent site inspection, it was determined by staff that the proposed project was in compliance with the Code. On March 31 staff approved the application and on April 4 staff received a letter of appeal from Mr. Tagawa requesting that the Commission overturn staff's decision, thereby denying the proposed project. It was staff's opinion that the proposed addi- tion would not significantly impair the primary view since an addition within the 16 -foot height limit would totally obstruct any existing view. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal, thereby approving the pro- posed project. Mr. Hughes asked about the existing cantilevered deck. Mr. Emeterio said there were no permits and that it was under investigation at the present time. Donald Tagawa, 26307 Basswood, was concerned about view obstruction and about television reception. He said he would have no objection if the addi- tion was at the rear of the property. He was also concerned about the ille- gal deck. Rick Moser, 1850 Lomita Boulevard, Lomita, said the owner was willing to re- move the deck and he felt that would really solve the whole problem. 4/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Hughes said there appears to be sufficient elevation and even with the existing antenna he did not feel there would be a problem with television reception. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny the appeal of Height Variation No. 146. Mr. Hughes asked if the Commission could condition the appeal on the removal of the deck. Mr. Weber advised against that and said a letter was prepared today directing Mr. Gentry to either remove the deck within 30 days or purchase the necessary property, which would involve a subdivision. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 47 12 Sweetbay Applicant/Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. Charles Tompkins The public hearing for this item had been continued from earlier in the meeting. There was still no one present in the audience to speak on this item. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said the fence was located directly on the easement line. She said Sweetbay was a private road and the easement was, therefore, owned by the property owner. She said the distance from the center line of the road to the easement edge was about 20 feet. Mr. Hinchliffe said the fence was not inconsistent with what the Commission had previously discussed, but it was on the easement line. Mr. Hughes said if the Commission was considering a parcel map, the entire property would be considered. Mr. McTaggart said he could not make the findings and that the applicant had offered no reason for having a fence on the property line. Mr. McTaggart and Dr. Brown could not make findings A or B. Mr. Hughes said he could make the findings because the property was in a slide area. Mr. Hinchliffe said he had difficulty with finding B. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to approve Variance No. 47 based on the following findings: A. The property was located in an area where there is a landslide, no residential building was permitted, and adjacent properties were open land not to be developed. The reasons for restrict- ing the height of fences from the easement lines appeared not to be applicable in this area; the property line was in the center of the street; the street was small and had the same effect as having the fence 20 feet back from the easement line in a conventional development. B. There were similar structures on nearly adjacent properties that appeared to be nonconforming prior uses; this appeared 4/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- to be a property right now being denied this particular appli- cant. C. As stated in the staff report. D. As stated in the staff report. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, Hinchliffe NOES: Brown, McTaggart ABSENT: None After further discussion, Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to deny Variance No. 47 based on the Commission's inability to make finding B as stated in the staff report. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: Hughes ABSENT: None Mr. Weber said staff would advise the applicant of the Commission's decision by letter. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber notified the Commission that on May 15 at 7:30 p.m. there would be a joint meeting with the Commissioners and the Park & Recreation Committee for the purpose of meeting with Prima Associates so that Prima could orient them as to what they were doing with regards to the Civic Center Planning Study. He said they may want to set up interviews with the Commission and Committee members for their input. Mr. Weber said he recently met with Sedway Cooke and felt the City was going to get a good product. He said the second draft was due the end of next week and he was looking forward to setting up a meeting with the Commission probably in early May. He suggested the Commissioners be prepared to set up a work session to discuss this. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Weber said the Holtzman situa- tion had not changed, that the City had filed for court action. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. Weber said the Code Inspector went today for the pre-trial hearing on Jacobson. In response to a question by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Weber said Por. Emeterio attended the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly meeting which was the first hearing and was just to gather information re setting up a natural habitat. ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, May 13, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. 4/22/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-