Loading...
PC MINS 19800923M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Ad3ourned Meeting September 23, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Brown LATE ARRIVAL Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber and Assistant Planner Sandra Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR the minutes of the meeting of September TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39672 South of Seacove Drive Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan and Tumanjan Investments be located in the westernmost portion Mr. Hughes arrived at 7:44 p.m. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer the Consent Calendar was unanimously adopted, thereby approving 9, 1980, as submitted. Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the Commission requested further information and revisions, and that subsequent to that meeting a revised map was submitted by the applicant. He said one of the primary revisions included relocation of the vista park, (,now proposed to of the site. r4r. Weber said staff felt a vista park in this location offered excellent opportunities, but that the proposed flag lot configuration was unacceptable because the park would not be visually_ accessible and would, therefore, not offer maximum public access. He said the Director of Parks and Recreation concurred that in its present configuration the proposed park would not be satisfactory. Staff recommended redesign of the proposed park. He said another significant matter was the bluff trail. He said it was the City Attorney's opinion that a number of agencies may have a good case to establish a prescriptive easement along the bluff. He said the applicant felt that the trade-off was either a bluff trail or a park. Based on that, staff suggested that a conditional use permit be filed which would offer both sides latitude in design. He said another option was a variance but that would be more difficult because of the required findings; therefore, staff recommended a conditional use permit. He apologized for not having the photographs on display as he did not have adequate time to prepare them. He said he analyzed the potential impacts from Porto Verde, from the upland proposed project, and from the Bay Club. He said in a worst case situation there would be significant view obstruction in some cases. He said another issue which came up was concerning bluff accidents. He said he fouhd some records from when the City was preparing its Coastal Specific Plan which showed no significant number of bluff accidents at that site.=- Staff recom- mended that the Commission review the revised map and continue the matter to the next meeting. He noted that the lot sizes shown on -the map received by the Commission was not correct and has since been corrected. In response to questions by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Weber said the City could approve the map and the following day someone could initiate the procedure for a prescriptive easement, that it would be a court procedure. He said he believed that such a procedure would not impact the processing of the map. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said encroachThent into the coastal setback area would require a variance, which would be difficult to obtain. He said regardless of what evidence the geologist came up with, the line was fixed. Mr. McTaggart noted that if the developer establishes lot lines which require a variance for development, it could not be granted because the developer would have created a self-imposed hardship. In response to questions by Dr. Baer concerning the vista park, Mr. Weber said his concern was with visual accessibility. He said in order to maximize public use of the park it must be visible to the public. He felt a minimum acceptable frontage would be 90 or 100 feet. Mr. McTaggart said he liked the proposed park location out on the point but was concerned that it would be more accessible to the residents than to the people of the state of California. He agreed with staff's analysis. Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing. Peter Delgado, Tumanjan and Tumanjan Investments, Inc., 22939 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, said the intention initially was to have the park in the center of the development. He said he agreed that the end parcel - was not highly visible. He said they were willing to reduce the size of the lots to create a larger vista park. He said he was willing to submit a conditional use permit application if it could be heard at the October 14, 1980, Commission meeting. Paul Davis, Medall, Aragon, Worswick and Associates, geologist, 2044 Kotner, Los Angeles, said they submitted two reports and in those reports and the letter they detailed the reason for the setback line based on geologic studies that they performed. He said the conditions on this site were significantly different than Portuguese Bond, that this was one of the most stable areas of bluff along the City's coastline. He said it was only when bentonite was continuous that it represented a problem and such was not the case with this site. In response to commission questions, Mr. Delgado said there was an existing asphalt road about 8 to 10 feet wide that was somewhat deteriorated which he proposed to improve and landscape on the west side next to the trail. He said the lot lines were adjustable, that the minimum acceptable lot width was 70 feet and the minimum acceptable lot size was three-fourths of an acre. He said it was their intention to build the homes well back from the street, thereby creating the large setback referred to by staff. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hughes said he would like to know what the Parks and Recreation Department considered adequate for the park site. Mr. Weber said at a minimum the Director of Parks and Recreation indicated he would consider something on the order of the combination of lot A and lot #1, as that would give visual access to the site and perhaps allow for a small parking area. Mr. Hinchliffe felt they had a fairly good indication of what the Parks and Recreation Department would like and he had no opposition to a decrease in lot size. He said the only unknown in his mind was what the City Council wanted concerning bluff dedication. He said the applicant indicated a willingness to go with a conditional use permit. 9/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Dr. Brown felt a determination on the -bluff issue was a key element. Mr. Delgado said he would submit a conditional use permit application and had no -problem with a lot size reduction. Re the vista park he said his preference would be to have the park in the center as originally proposed but that he would put it where the City wished. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Weber said Marineland owned the property immediately west. He said a park --'in the present location could be a visual buffer from Marineland's activities. Dr. Baer said the feeling of the Commission was that they would like reconfiguration. He said they needed to see the view analysis and needed answers to the bluff dedication issue. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested more input from Parks and Recreation concerning the park location, i.e. first, second and third choice. Keith Palmer, architect, showed the Commission the colored two -acre proposal of the vista park in the center. He said the last proposal was shown on the east side and the current one is on the west side of the site. Dr. Brown said he preferred the vista park in its present location but modified to make it -adequate and acceptable to the Parks and Recreation Department and the concerns raised by staff related to visual accessibility. Mr. McTaggart also felt the location on the point was better. He said it would also provide a buffer from anything that may go on at Marineland. Mr. Hughes suggested the vista park be extended along the bluff. He said this would provide maximum usage and public access and would solve the problem of a prescriptive easement. He said the City's goal was to pre- serve as much coastal land as possible for public access. Mr. Hinchliffe said he had no problem with that if the City Council was willing to take over the park. He felt they should wait until they get the necessary information from the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Department. Dr: Baer agreed with Mr. Hughes. Dr. Brown said he had no objection to what Mr. Hughes suggested but -would have to wait to hear back from the City Council. He advised the applicant that the question of bluff dedication would be answered by the Council and that he hoped they could then arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39673 Mr. Weber --said at the last meeting the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 58 Commission reviewed the revised map Southwest of Beachview & Coastsite which included one less unit, relocated Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan recreation facilities, revised lot and Tumanjan Investments lines, and a (eduction in the length of "A" Street. He said it was the Commission's consensus that the basic design concept was acceptable if view obstruction was nota problem, and that the Commission felt further information was necessary on the issues of walkways, walls, view, private streets, and geology. He said the revised plan showed a more extensive system of walkways within the development. He said the primary changes included two new segments of walkway leading from the easternmost cul-de-sac to the Coastsite Drive fight -of -way and realign- ment and extension of the walkways adjacent to the recreation area. He said as submitted it was a very thorough walkway system but he did not see where it provided any direct public access through the site. He said the perimeter wall plans showed a wrought iron and block masonry wall with pilasters at regular intervals and some pockets for landscaping. It was - 9/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- recommended that no part of the wall exceed 42 inches within 20 feet of the property line for vehicular visibility and for consistency with; - the setbacks. He said another problem was that some of the landscaping had the potential of obstructing views. He said the latest plan still designated the streets as private and staff continued to recommend that they be public. He said the latest plan had been submitted to"the`Public Works Department but'that staff had not heard back re textured surfaced streets and whether they were acceptable. He said the applicant indicated that a geologist would be present at this meeting to answer any questions re geology. He apologized for not having the final view analysis prepared for this meeting. He said there would be view obstruction from the Bay Club but that there were areas where the units could be lowered to maintain much of the view. He said -a portion of the view would be obstructed from the first floor units of Porto Verde. He said there would also very clearly be view obstruction from the project which was 3ust approved across Beachview. He said in many -cases a structure 16 feet in height would obstruct much of the view. Staff recommended that the applicant look at the grading plan and try to lower those structures to minimize view impacts. He said in a lot of cases there would be no expectation of a vi6w but in other cases there would be view obstruction for part of the structure that exceeds 16 feet. He said unfortunately the weather had not permitted a really good view analysis. Staff recommended that the Commission review the pr03ect and continue the matter to the next meeting. Dr. Brown said this was a continued public hearing for the conditional use permit and he opened the public hearing on the tentative tract map. Keith Palmer, Neil Stanton Palmer Architects, Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, said the sections showed the units as being rectangular in shape and he pointed out that they were proposing hip roofs which would reduce the impact. He re-emphasized the importance of the roof- scape on the parcel as people approach from Palos Verdes Drive South. He said the roofs would have significant effect. Peter Delgado, Tumanjan and Tumanaan Investments, Inc., Torrance, said at the previous meeting it was suggested that there be continuous walk- ways. He said they submitted the proposed wall elevation to the staff. He said the landscaping would be controlled by CC&Rs. He said none of the -ad- jacent properties would be denied 100 percent of their existing views. He said the issue of private versus public streets was still unresolved. He said he still preferred private streets with -walkways. He said there could also be an easement along the roadway. He suggested a 24 -inch reduction in finished grade which would lower structures in critical points. He said they could also reduce the pitch of the roofs. Mr. McTaggart was concerned with the cumulative effect with the number of units proposed and their effect on the surrounding property. He said the Commission has to look at that effect. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. It was the consensus of the Commission to go along with staff's recommendation concerning the wall height not exceed 42 inches within 20 feet of the right-of-way. Mr. Hughes felt there should be a landscaping plan and further re- quested an elevation or growth line or maintenance height line be established for the landscaping. It was the consensus of the Commission that a landscaping plan be required. Dr. Baer said he was not opposed to private streets and pointed out that many people prefer them. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the provisions of the Coastal -Plan required public streets and if they were mandated. Mr. Weber said yes to both questions. 9/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- • Mr. Delgado said private streets were allowed if they did not impede public access. It was -the consensus of the Commission that there be public streets. Re walkways, Mr. Hinchliffe said he would rather see public streets and not worry about walkways to the park. Mr. Hughes agreed. He said if the applicant were to propose an alternative development that was not as dense, then perhaps he would consider private streets with walkways. Dr. Brown agreed that with public streets the walkway issue was resolved. It was the consensus of the Commission that they were satisfied with the walkway system as it exists as long as the streets were public. Mr. McTaggart felt every effort should be made to maintain views on adjacent properties, particularly with regard to the recently approved projects. He felt consideration should be given to the use of hip roofs, but wanted to be sure the first consideration was towards the City's own height variation ordinance. Mr. Hinchliffe said view obstruction clearly is a problem. He said he was not sure, however, to what extent they should consider view obstruction to the Bay Club. In addition, he said in looking at the cross sections, it appeared that there were units proposed within the project that would have their views obstructed by units proposed in front of them. Re geology, Mr. McTaggart said his concerns had been discussed in the previous public hearing. Dr. Brown suggested that staff come back to the next meeting with a view analysis. RECESS At 9:46 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:59 p..m. with the same members present. HEIGHT VARIATION 155 APPEAL Ms. Lavitt said the applicant was Lot 21, Tract 31617 (Seacrest) appealing staff's denial for the Appellant/Landowner: Dr. M. Lewis construction of a single family residence at a proposed height of 25.5 feet. She said the site slopes from the front property line up to a flat pad, with 5:1 slopes on both the east and west property lines and a slope down to the walkway easement at the rear. She said an onsite inspection indicated that the proposed structure would contribute toward future cumulative impact and adversely affect the view from surrounding undeveloped property. She said the future development of the Kajima site (across Ocean Terrace Drive) would be impacted by the cumulative effect of structures over 16 feet in height along this ridge, thereby effectively obstructing Catalina Island and the distant horizon. She said upon denial`of the application, revised plans were submitted which lowered the structure to 18 feet. She said although lowering the structure diminished viewing impacts, the potential for cumulative view obstruction still exists from the adjacent undeveloped property. Staff recommended that the appeal be denied and -the applicant revise the plans to conform to the Code, since the proposed structure would contribute to significant cumulative impact. Dr. Baer asked if staff interpreted the site as being on a ridge or promontory. He felt it was. 9/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- r +� Ms. Lavitt said staff did not consider it to be on a ridge. Marshall Lewis, architect, 721 Lionel Road, Santa Monica, said before approaching the City they approached the -n-6i,ghbb"fing property owners.. He said they felt the properties across the canyon would not have any adverse effects because they were quite a distance away. He said they totally redesigned the house the best they could without losing a tremendous amount of footage. He said due to the cost of the property it seemed it would be a hardship to have a smaller amount of square footage than that proposed. He added that the natural grade of the site had been higher prior to the creation of the pad. Mr. McTaggart said the pad elevations whi&h were established during the hear'ings on the tract were to be the points from which measurements were taken. He said the existing grade is the natural grade to the new owners. In response to questions by Dr. Baer, Mr. Lewis said the lot was at the end of the cul-de-sac and was different than -:most of the other lots in that it sloped up. Mr. McTaggart said it was graded -that way for the drainage. Marshall Lewis, landowner, 2 Ketch, Marina del Rey, said one of their family members had -se-Vere-arthritis and that the second -floor was proposed to house a rehabilitation facility and that an elevator was proposed to carry that family member to the second floor. He said the design was both beautiful and functional, and that the extra height was necessary to house the proposed facility. Mr. Hughes said in his opinion this was an application where cumulative impact was really an issue. He said if there were ten 25 -foot homes in a row there would be a significant effect. He said in consideration of this tract all things were looked at. He felt staff was very generous not saying this was on a promontory. Mr. Hinchliffe said there was a difference in elevation of about 10 feet on this lot and then the next lot dropped another 8 to 10 feet. He said he might agree with Mr. Hughes' concern more if the lots were all at the same elevation. Mr. McTaggart said there was a great deal of concern in terms of drainage with this tract, that was the number -one consideration. He said the second c-onsideratIon was to set pad elevations in order to preserve views. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the applicant grading down two feet to accom- modate an 18 -foot structure. Mr. McTaggart said only if it would not affect the drainage. Dr. Brown said the drainage issue was a major issue of his Homeowners Association at the time of tract hearings. He said when the developer changed his mind about building the homes the Homeowners Association was very concerned that pad elevations be set. He felt this was a very good example of a promontory and felt there also was potential-, for cumulative effect. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, with Mr. Hinchliffe dissenting, the Commission denied the appeal of staff's decision, thereby denying Height Variation No. 155 because of cumulative impact and the project was located on a ridge or promontory. 9/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-' Dr. Brown advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 52 Mr. Weber said appli8ations-were re - 28710 Atford ceived for both a height variation Applicant: Bill Lusby, A.I.A. and variance, which were separate Landowner: Renato Curto procedures but related to this project. He said the proposed pro3ect was located above the existing garage which faces Atford Drive. He said the maximum height of the proposed structure was 23 feet and consisted of apprioximiately 1000 square feet. He said some minor grading was proposed, and no windows were proposed for the south side of the addition which faces the adjacent neighboring property. He reviewed the required findings and staff's responses as listed in the staff report. Staff felt there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved because the existing single family residence, faces and is oriented towards Atford Drive and already is an encroachment and the structure is placed on the lot in such a manner that it is reasonable for the proposed second story addition to meet and match the existing first story wall. Staff felt such a variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant because due to the orientation of the structure on the lot, the applicant was restricted from constructing an addition that, would match the existing house and work with the existing structure that already encroached into the rear setback. Staff felt the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or in3urious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located because there is no evidence indicating otherwise. Staff felt the granting of such a variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan because of the structure's position on the corner lot, if the front property line designation were changed to Atford Drive, the lot would provide for a 24 -foot front setback, a 21 -foot+ street side setback (along Sparta), a 30 -foot+ rear setback, and a 10.5 -foot side yard setback. He reviewed the plans on display and said the applicant was requesting a variance for an addition that would come up and match the existing structure. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission appprove Variance No. 52 since all the mandatory findings can be made, sub]ect to the condition that all appropriate approvals on permits be obtained for the proposed second story addition. He said this was a very similar case as the one heard by the Commission a couple weeks, ago in that the orientation of the existing structure pretty much dictates the loca- tion of the addition. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Weber said staff has determined that there would be no view obstruction and approval of the height variation was awaiting his signature. Bill Lusby, 642 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, said the problem was that the County had jurisdiction at the time the structure was built. He said there was a difference then as to which was the front of the house. He said when the City incorporated and changed ordinances, the front and side property lines were changed. In response to questions by Dr. Baer,, Mr. Lusby said other locations had been considered for the addition but if it was on the north side it would obstruct the view of the hou-s-e across the street. He said a single story addition was impossible because of the pool and yard area. Kenneth Slade, 2230 Sparta Drive, across the street from the pr03ect site, said he was more concerned with the height variation than with the variance for encroachment. He did not see how one could be considered without the other. He said there were no two-story homes in the neigh- borhood and there were no other rear yard encroachments. He was concerned about view obstruction and said his view was towards the harbor area, over 9/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- the northern portion of the subject site. size of the addition.also. • He was concerned with the In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. Slade said if the addition stayed within the height limit he would not be opposed to the encroach- ment. Lee Argabright, 2289 Sparta, said he lived several blocks away in the next tract. He said the specifics of this particular pro3ect would have no effect on him, but he was perplexed by the mechanism that separates the two applications. He felt it was meaningless to discuss one and not the other. His objection was primarily a matter of principal. He said there were no two-story homes, only one split level home on that street. He was concerned about setting a precedent and the non -conformity with the neighborhood. In repsonse to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Argabright said he was not concerned about the encroachment problem but rather the height variation. Doris Oldenburg, 28722 Atford, next door, was concerned with the closeness of the two-story addition to her property. She waq concerned with the effect it would have on the privacy of her vara.:fSTTe-*was also concerned that part of her view might be destroyed. She said -they had a City view over the rear of the subject property. Mr. Hinkel, 2278 Sparta, spoke in support of the project. He said he could not understand why anyone was ob3ecting. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued until the appeal period expires on the height variation decision; and if appealed, that both items be considered at the same time. Mr. McTaggart left at 11:10 p.m. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said November 11, was Veterans' Day and, therefore, that Planning Commission meeting would have to be rescheduled. He said he would check on the availability of the Council Chambers and report back to the Commission. Mr. Weber announced that the City had a new City Manager, Don Guluzzy, from Morro Bay, due to begin on November 10. He said Sharon Hightower and he would continue in their "acting" positions until that time. Mr. Weber said he was figuring how much staff time would be needed to assist the Commission on the trails study and mixed-use development study. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown said the Architectural Com- mittee interviewed four architectural firms and would be deciding which ones to recommend to the City Council for approval. Dr Brown reminded the Commission of its joint meeting with the City Council on September 30. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would not be able to attend the meeting on September 30. Dr. Brown said the Ordinance Subcommittee (Mr. Hughes and Mr. McTaggart) should review the height variation ordinance. He said the City Council's recent actionvwas to av_Ge94, receive and file. 9/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- 0 - I Mr. Weber said staff will also be sending that Subcommittee something on lot sizes and their relationship to private roads. Mr. Hughes asked the status of the Holtzman tennis court. Mr. Weber said Mr. Holtzman just submitted a minor exception permit on the structure, that the judgement had been that he could submit a minor exception permit to the City. Dr. Brown said the Mayor's conference would be October 4, 1980. ADJOURNMENT At 11:21 p.m. it was moved, seconded and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, September 34, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 9/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9-