Loading...
PC MINS 19800826C7 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting August 26, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Richard Thompson and Assistant Planner John Emeterio. COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Brown said item A under New Busi- ness (Grading Application No. 467) would not be heard this evening, and stated that the Commission need not take any action. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 151 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said at the last meeting 28741 Blythewood staff was directed to obtain additional Applicant: Earl Lawrence photographs showing a panoramic type view with the principal view from each of'the affected properties clearly identified. He said the requested photo- graphs and information were on display. In staff's opinion the portion of the proposed project 16 feet high significantly impaired the primary view from at least three neighboring properties. Staff recommended that the Com- mission'deny the appeal and thereby deny the project since the proposed addition would significantly impair the primary view from properties identi- fied as having a view as defined in the Development Code. Ile reviewed the photographs in depth for the Commission. Mr. Hughes said in each case the primary view was bounded by trees and if the vegetation was trimmed or removed the primary view would be larger, more panoramic. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said the only re- strictions on determining views are that the views be seen from ground level and-Ae4-. within the required setback areas. Mr. McTaggart felt the harbor and City lights represented the primary views from the structures in this area, not Catalina. He disagreed that the Pri- mary view had been established for the three homes. Earl Lawrence, applicant, did not feel that staff had properly responded to all of the Commission concerns raised at the last meeting. He said he was satisfied with the quality of the staff photographs this time and pointed out that the primary vrew-of-ea-ch-affe-cted,propert-y is being restricted by, their own shrubs, as is clearly shown in the photographs, even limiting the view of the Santa Monica Mountains. He said since they have such a large view, he did not feel the impairment resulting from his project could be, considered significant. He discussed the photographs he had submitted and described the location each photograph was taken from. Dr. Baer asked if the applicant had considered horizontal development. Mr. Lawrence said they have five feet on each side of the structure, have already been turned down for an addition in the front, and the rear area was, not large enough to accommodate the addition. Mr. McTaggart asked if it was necessary for the addition to run the entire length of the house. Mr. Lawrence explained that they would be losing.one whole bedroom because of the landing, etc. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Lawrence said he would trim his landscaping if requested by any affected property owner. Frances Lawrence further explained the difficulty of horizontal development and said because of the nature of the floor plan and the traffic pattern, there would be no access. Ed Stembridge, 28731 Trailriders, 'distributed photographs to the Commission and spoke in opposition to the project. Re the landscaping in his yard, he said from inside the house the landscaping does not interfere with his view. Jim Spratt, 28805 Trailriders, spoke in opposition to the project. He dis- cussed cumulative impact and said the Code states that the Director of Plan- ning "may" grant a request of this type if it meets certain criteria, that c approval is not guaranteed. He said it appeared to be the feeling on the part of the applicant and the Commission that if someone has a wide view, they can afford to lase some of it. Mr. Berman, 28739 Trailriders, said his ocean view would be significantly affected. He said landscaping was a temporary element which could at any time be trimmed or removed but that a building was permanent. Ron Rowley, 28725 Trailriders, said the pictures did not represent what the human eye sees. He was concerned about view obstruction and said the photo- graphs did not show the damage that this project would cause to his property. Mr. Sun, 28717 Trailriders, read his letter to the Commission opposing the pro3ect because of view obstruction, particularly of Catalina. He said if this project is granted it would be at the expense of the neighboring pro- perties. Concerning the trees on the affected properties, he said all they had to do was move around on the property to obtain a view. He said one of the reasons for landscaping is to provide a variety of views. He presented four letters from residents who were unable to attend tonight's meeting: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Cartozian, 28703 Trailriders; Mr. & Mrs. Francis Holmes, 28625 Trailriders; Mr & Mrs. Charles Dalton, 28633 Trailriders; and Miss Nakamura, 28709 Trailriders. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the photogra^phs were a good representation of his view. Mr. Sun saidi-yes, from that particular point on the -lot, but -that -he -had bet- ter views and different views, depending on where he stood on the property. Jim Mitchell, 28811 Trailriders, saidthe project would not impair his view of the ocean and city, but that in looking at a sailboat, if there is a roof extension high up, the view would be different. Edith Mayerson, 28825 Trailriders, was opposed to the project for the same reason as Mr. Mitchell. Dr. Baer proposed a motion to deny the appeal to Height Variation No. 151. The motion died for lack of a second. Dr. Baer said he felt there was a significaA impact, that a lot of evidence had been presented to substantiate this. Mr. Hughes said the language in the ordinance was designed to assure that the control over property would be reasonable. He felt his concern with what people do with their own property with respect to shrubbery was a real issue. He said the Commission was seeing a narrow view in the photographs because of the trees, when in actuality if the trees were trimmed the view would be much wider. He said while there would be some loss of view, he found it difficult to say that this project represents a significant view impairment. August 26, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- I 9Z,_ Mr. McTaggart concurred and said the ordinance was not written to ban con- struction. He wondered what the affected property owners had done to pre- serve their views. He also felt that the primary view from at least two of the properties was of the harbor lights, not Catalina. Mr. Hinchliffe did not feel that the impairment was significant based on -the photographs submitted by staff&," Dr. Brown agreed and was troubled by the description of primary view. He felt the primary view was larger than what appeared to exist because of the landscaping. He felt that since the point of cumulative impact was raised this evening, it should also be addressed. Mr. Hughes felt the potential for cumulative effect was minimal. He said the area was a mixture of one and two story homes and in this case the sub- ject property was a single story home between existing two-story homes. Mr. McTaggart agreed, and added that -the design of the project would not look like an addition and would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Hinchliffe did not see the potential for cumulative impact with a two- story structure on each.side. ,az Dr. B'aae1�=ot 'feel there would be cumulative effect' -in this case. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to grant the ap- peal of Height Variation No. 151 based on the following findings: - a. Notice was given to property owners within 500 feet of the lot. b.- The proposed structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction. 11 c. A view impairment for that portion over 16 feet high does not significantly impair the primary view from any of -the properties identified as having a view. d. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. e. The structure doeWJ',not significantly impair a view or vista from public property. I f. There is no significant cumulative impact caused by granting the application. Dr. Baer felt the project could be designed differently (re finding B.) and said he was not convinced that something lower and more towards the front of the lot could not be designed. Re finding C. he felt the view of at least one of the three neighboring residences was being impaired. Mr. McTaggart pointed out that Mr. Lawrence offered to trim the trees on his property. He said part -of his decision would hinge, on the applicant's ability to reduce any impact. He felt, however, that -the amount of space lost for the stairway made it necessary to have the size addition proposed. To minimize any impact on the neighbors he felt it was important that the landscaping be properly laced and that the tree which would be blocking views be maintained at a specific height to minimize that. Mr. Hughes suggested that in order to improve views that exist now they also impose a condition requiring that a landscaping plan be submitted to staff and that all of the trees and shrubs be -kept below the ridgeline. Mr. Thompson suggested requiring that the landscaping be trimmed to the specified height prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. McTaggart also wanted to be-sure-that.-thecondi.ti6n stayed with -the, property and wondered if=the applicant would agree to a recorded deed re- striction. Mr. Lawrence said he would agree to that if it was legally possible. August 26, 1980* PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- The above motion, as conditioned, was carried, with Dr. Baer casting the dissenting vote. RECESS At 9:39 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:46 p.m. with the same members present. VARIANCE NO. 51 Mr. Emeterio said the request was to al-_ 31205 Ganado low a proposed room addition to encroach Applicant/landowner: Dr. & to within five feet of the rear property Mrs. Robert Smith line. He said following review of a site pian review application, staff determined that the front property line was by Code definition adjacent to Floweridge Road, not Ganado as the applicant had assumed. Therefore, the proposed ad- dition is located in the rear yard setback as opposed to the side yard area as called out on the plans. He said the proposed pro3ect was a single story room addition consisting of 780 square feet, at a maximum height of 15 feet. He said there was no grading proposed. He reviewed the four required findings and the staff responses as stated in the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the variance since all the mandatory findings could be made-, subject to conditions maintaining -and restricting from further development a minimum 12 -foot setback from the westerly property line and a minimum 5 -foot setback from the easterly property line. Dr. Brown said a deed restrictionl,,could accomplish -the -conditions., Public hearing was opened. Robert -Smith, 31205 Ganado, said the addition should nicely fit in with the rest of the home. He said the only affected neighbor sent a letter of sup- port of the project. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes felt the request was reasonable and agreed with staff's responses to the findings and with the conditions suggested by staff. He further a- greed with a deed restriction or covenant on the conditions. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 80-17, thereby approving Variance No. 51 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" with the additional requirement that conditions no. 1 and no. 2 of the exhibit be recorded as a covenant against the property prior to the issuance of building permits. Said approval was based on the fol- lowing findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con-- ditions applicable to the property, or to the intended use -of the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district because the existing structure is situated on a subst&ndard lot in such a manner that the only possible area for an addition is in the proposed location. B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant which is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. Due to the orientation of the lot the property owner is restricted from using the only appropriate area for -an addition of this size. C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located, since there is no evi- dence that a detrimental or injurious situation would occur. D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan, since the proposed structure would maintain a twelve -foot setback along the westerly property line and a five-foot setback along the easterly property line. Auqus-t__:Z6; _-1T8-0;-_-- -PLANNING.COMMI SS ION MINUTES -4- Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37818 Mr. Thompson said the request was for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 59 the development of 22 townhomes with re - North and East of Hawthorne Blvd. laced recreational facilities and common between Via Rivera and Via open space on a 24.4 acre parcel. He La Cresta ' said the vacant site was zoned RS -4, Landowner: Palos Verdes Prop. RS-il and Open Space Hazard with Natural Applicant: Sikand Engineering and Urban Appearance Overlay Control Dis- trict.s designated for all of the develop- able portions of the site. He saidthle2 units were proposed directly from Hawthorne Boulevard adjacent to Via Rivera by a 26 -foot wide, 750 -foot long private street. He noted that a natural drainage course was sited on the property and was shown on the plan... He discussed the mitigation measures and referred to the chart in the staff report. He said one of the biggest issues was the access to the site. He said staff and Public Works analyzed the access and that it was a bad situation because of the close distance to the intersection, shopping center, etc. He said the first submittal showed the adjacent parcel being included in the project with access off Via Rivera.. He said apparently the other party was no longer interested in a joint venture. He reviewed the photographs which were on dispi-ay-.end the plans, indicating where the Open Space Hazard areas were. Mr. Hughes asked the zoning of the pr( the access to that property. Mr. Thompson said the zoning was Open off of Via Rivera. Mr. Hughes asked if it was within the through that property, off of Via Rive Mr. Thompson said he did not know. Public hearing was opened. erty which was now "not a part" and Space Hazard and that it had access City's purvue to obtain an easement ra. Jerry Chick, Palos Verdes properties, 13838 Carson, Torrance, said the pro- ject had been designed to meet the Development Code. He felt the design concept would be pleasing to the eye. He said -there were green areas be- tween the buildings and that the project was designed to have a pleasing effect. Re the open space and recreational areas, he said they build from experience and have done analyses of what buyers want. Re access, he said they submitted a study including the adjacent parcel. He said they have checked legally and cannot force the property owner to sell his property or go along with the project. He said the realize the difficulty with the access, but pointed out there is not a history of accidents at Via Rivera. He felt they had a good development scheme. Re the interior street con- figuration, he said the cul-de-sac in' the middle was designed to add interest in the project while still allowing safe turn -around and the ability to park cars.. He felt it was a very creative solution. He said they do meet the parking requirements. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, 2400 Michelson Drive, Irvine, said they have looked at every possible access Re_the�°interior driveway, he said if it was shorter it would have to be steeper. Mr. McTaggart felt 15 percent was a steep road and did not know if there was a safe access into the property. August 26, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- I Mr. Hinchliffe said the width of the road was dictated by the location of the units. Re the proposed terracing, Mr. McTaggart was concerned about 60 feet of structure and compared it to the Terraces in Rolling Hills Estates. Mr. Hughes wondered if other approaches had been looked at for parking other than standard garages, such as an underground parking structure. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. McTaggart felt they would be doing a disservice to the whole city if they allowed access off of Hawthorne Boulevard, 15 -percent roads, and pri- vate streets. He also was concerned about terracing and said the City did not want to see another Terraces' structure. He felt the City should make the decision on what was the safest alternative and he was very unhappy with the proposed access, with the private streets, with parking cars between the homes, etc. He said he was not pleased with any aspect of the project and felt it would be totally out'of character with the surrounding area. He felt an alternative access had to be found. He was concerned with the num- ber of curb cuts as there would not be any room for parking on the street and suggested a common driveway approach. He did not feel that guest park- ing had been addressed. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said there were other developable areas on the site but that the slopes in the area of Via La Cresta were very extreme. Mr. Hinchliffe was not sure what solutions existed given the topography, the environmental impact report, the 35 -percent slopes, the Open Space Hazard areas, etc. Dr. Brown said he understood the constraints of the site and that perhaps another unit would have to be removed in order to make the project work. He felt the access was a real problem and suggested that the Commission first find out all the 'City's options. Mr. Hughes agreed and said staff should have the City_ Attorney address the question of what the City's°alternatives were re access. He felt that is- sue needed an in-depth analysis by the City Attorney and that the Commission needed a written report from the City Attorney on the subject. He also wished to know from the City Attorney what options and mechanisms were available should the Commission choose to deny the project and what con- stitutes sufficient grounds for denial. Mr. McTaggart wondered whether or not a density transfer was an option. Mr. Hughes said he would also like to see the other attempts which have been made for development of the site and the studies which have been done. He said he was also concerned about density and traffic flow. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed it would be helpful to the Commission to analyze some of the other designs°that the applicant has considered. Dr. Brown said the Commission was concerned with the density and other as- pects of the project, such as access, and needed legal clarification on the points previously mentioned. He advised the applicant to meet with staff. ° STAFF REPORTS Mr. Thompson referred to the i.tems con- tained in the memo from the City Council which had been transmitted to the Commission. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, It was suggested that --the Ordinance Subcommittee respond -to -the request con- tained in the letter from the Council of Homeowners Association, bringing it before the Commission for review, to be sent from the Commission as a whole. August 26, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Hinchliffe noted that SCAG was holding a workshop in Long Beach on Inclusionary Housing. He felt the Commission would need a work session to study mixed use housing. Mr. Hughes said they should also be looking at what areas of the City this could be accomplished or if it was limited to the Golden Cove site. He said the Commission should discuss where affordable housing could be ac- commodated. Dr. Brown asked if staff could bring more material on this issue and set up a work session for the Commission. Mr. Thompson said he was not sure if this item was budgeted. The Commission felt they needed staff time and requested that staff dis- cuss this with the Acting City Manager and that a work session be set up. Mr. McTaggart said there was money budgeted for staff time at work sessions and he suggested cutting that figure in half to free up some funds to have staff help with those projects. The other Commissioners concurred. Mr. Hughes said the City already has mixed use housing at the Salvation Army site. I Dr. Brown reported on the meeting of the 16th with the Mayor and Chair- persons of the other Committees. He said they discussed communication pro- blems, mixed use housing, and the problem of illegal signs. Mr. Hughes noted there was a big diesel sign at the Exxonrservice station and asked staff to check into it. Dr. Brown said at the meeting, Mayor Hein reported on the joint City Council/ Parks & Recreation Committee meeting. He also said the next meeting of the Civic Center Committee would be on September 8 at which time they would dis- cuss evaluations to choose the #1, #2, and #3 proposals. Dr. Brown said when the Commission meets on mixed use housing, they might also want to discuss trails. ADJOURNMENT At 11:4.8 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, September 9, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. '--August 26, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-