PC MINS 19801223(Dl�
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
December 23, 1980
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown.
PRESENT: Baer, Hughes, Brown
LATE ARRIVALS: Hinchliffe, McTaggart
ABSENT: None
Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planner Sandra
Massa Lavitt, and Code Inspector Alice Bergquist Angus.
CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by
Dr. Baer, the Consent Calendar was
unanimously passed, thereby approving
the minutes of the meeting of December 9, 1980, as submitted.
VARIANCE NO. 58
7449 Via Lorado
Applicant: William J. Hauf
felt the variance was necessary to
children who might try to get into
using the spa.
Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:37 p.m.
Ms. Angus said the request was for
fencing that exceeds the allowable six
feet by a maximum of four feet to be
permitted to remain as an enclosure
for a spa. She said the applicant
provide sufficient safety for neighboring
the spa, and to provide privacy for people
Ms. Angus reviewed the four required findings and the staff responses as
stated in the staff report. She noted that the subject fence was solid wood.
Staff recommended denial of the variance based on a lack of justifiable evi-
dence for findings A and B. Staff also recommended that the applicant be
given 30 days to initiate removal of the fence portion that exceeds six feet.
Public hearing was opened.
William Hauf, applicant, 7449 Via Lorado, said the fence was constructed at
a height of approximately ten feet for safety reasons. He said the construc-
tion was done with the endorsement of the neighbors in the area -who feel a
fence of lesser height would constitute a danger.
Mr. Hinchliffe arrived at 7:41 p.m.
Mr. Hauf discussed the slope conditions and felt the extra height was a
critical margin of safety. He reviewed the plans and said he was concerned
about children spanning the fence. He said six neighbors signed the petition
voicing concern for safety, all in favor of the variance. He felt the steep
slope was an extraordinary condition. He said the privacy issue was secondary
to the safety issue. He said at the time of construction he was not aware of
any restriction on fence heights. He said he was only told that he must con-
struct a fence at a minimum of five feet for the spa.
In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Hauf said there was no fence
for several months after the spa was constructed. He said he had to drain
the spa while the fence was being constructed, that the house was vacant at
the time. He said no one was using the spa, that it was filled with water
to season the wood. He said the neighbors were very concerned at that time
about the safety aspects, which is why the fence issue came about. He said
the inside measurement was about nine feet, that it measured ten feet from
the outside. He said the fence was below the roof line at the pitch, above
it at the point of the flat roof. He explained how the drainage worked.
In response to a Commission question, Mr. Weber said the spa was approved by
staff after the house was approved by the Commission. He said it was not
necessary to come back before the Commission for spa approval.
Mr. McTaggart wondered why the hot tub was approved with no provision shown
for fencing. He felt the structure should be removed from the area of the
drainage swale. He noted that this was a very difficult piece of property
to deal with in the first place.
Dr. Baer asked if the applicant had considered glass louvers for the upper
four feet of fence to permit light and air, or if he had considered putting
a roof on top.
Mr. Hauf said he did not want glass louvers because the fence would have to
be re -enforced to support the glass, that a cover would be acceptable, but
that he really preferred to leave the fence as is.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the dam which had been built over the
drainage swale. He felt an alternate drain should be placed above.
Mr. Weber said Building and Safety was responsible for the drainage, but
that in terms of the plans not showing a fence, the City uses a stamp when
approving pools and spas which states that five-foot fencing is required.
Mr. McTaggart said when the original site development came up it was deter-
mined that they were stretching to allow the primary use on the site, but
that the plans seemed to work with the slope. He felt a site inspection
should be required with this kind of slope with respect to requests for addi-
tional structures.
In response to Commission questions, Ms. Angus said the fence was not within
the setbacks. She said staff had discussed with the applicant the possibility
of constructing a roof on it, that staff had no problem with that alternative
if it meets all the applicable Codes.
Mr. Hughes felt if anything the wall should be at least: -another foot higher.
He said it was obvious that the neighborhood children can get into the area.
He said the City would allow a ten -foot chain link fence with green wind-
screens around a tennis court. He said this was a hot tub permitted on a
very steep lot. He felt it was ridiculous to require the fence to be lowered.
He said to roof over it would block the sun and add expense to the applicant.
He felt that Mr. McTaggart had a valid point about provisions for the main-
tenance of the drainage Swale.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolution
P.C. No. 80-29, thereby approving Variance No. 58 based on the fact that the
four required findings can be made, as follows:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to this property, or to the in-
tended use of the property, which do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zoning district. The
steep slope of this site creates an unusual problem in
fencing the spa. In order that adequate safety to prevent
access to the uphill side from children in the neighbor-
hood, the City finds it necessary that the wall be a mini-
mum height of nine feet along the rear wall and that the
balance of the wall be constructed to be consistent with
that portion of the wall.
12/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appli-
cant, which right is possessed by other property owners
under like conditions in the same zoning district. The
site contains an approved spa and in order for the appli-
cant to enjoy the right to use the spa, a fence is re-
quired by the City. As is stated in finding A (above)
the fence must be at least nine feet high to provide ade-
quate safety along the rear.
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 lo-
cated. The fencing does provide an extra measure of safety
and it does not obstruct the neighbors' view of the ocean.
The City received a petition signed by six of the appli-
cant's neighbors in favor of the request.
D. That the granting of this variance is not contrary to the
objectives of the General Plan.
Said motion included the following condition of approval: That adequate
provisions satisfactory to the staff be made to provide for adequate drainage
along the drainage swale at the rear of the spa.
Roll call was as follows:
AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within fifteen calendar days. He noted that by the Commission's action, it
was determined that there was not an administrative error.
VARIANCE NO. 59 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for a
GRADING NO. 488 single family residence on an upsloping
30172 Cartier Drive lot with a total average slope of 45
Applicant: Elena R. Ledon percent. She said the residence would
reach a total of 38-1/2 feet and she
reviewed the related Code section. She
said the related grading applicant stated that the proposal would include
grading 986 cubic yards. She said the plans also called for 17 -foot retain-
ing walls within the structure, including nine feet of cut and eight feet of
fill near the rear of the structure. She said seven feet of fill would also
be located at the front of the structure, decreasing in depth as the site
descends to the front property line at a slope of 67 percent. She reviewed
the four required findings and staff's responses as stated in the staff re-
port. She said the grading plan indicates that the driveway does not exceed
20 percent, but that the slope of the driveway exceeds 22 percent and was as
steep as 29 percent in some areas. Staff recommended denial of the request.
Public hearing was opened.
Elena Ledon, applicant, 6706 Los Verdes Drive, described the lot and said
the design responds to the view and provides safety and for the welfare of
the community. She said the center of the driveway would be 20 percent,
but that if the City considers the shoulder as the point of measurement, she
would reduce the driveway slope. She said the site was very difficult to
develop and that the area where the driveway is located is where there is
the most slope. She said the shape of the house will not vary the conditions
of the retaining walls or the driveway. She showed alternative designs and
discussed each one in depth. She asked what part of her -plan violated the
grading ordinance.
Ms. Lavitt responded that the driveway was the problem.
12/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
The Commission discussed the different alternatives with the applicant.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution
P.C. No. 80-30, thereby denying Variance No. 59, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Hughes felt the driveway issue was a result of the whole project. He
felt the problem was with the structure itself. He said all of the alterna-
tives show the same structure in different locations on the lot. He said
the scale and magnitude of the structure is larger than the lot can handle.
He felt the proposed home was too imposing for this particular lot.
Dr. Brown concurred with Mr. Hughes.
Dr. Baer felt if the garage was detached there would be no problem.
Mr. McTaggart said at a 60 -percent slope it would have to be 75 percent sub-
terranean. He felt this was a lot that was almost undevelopable and he did
not feel that the proposal was the solution.
Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows:
AYES: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown
NOES: Baer
ABSENT: None
Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal the decision to the City Council
within fifteen calendar days.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
Grading No. 488 was denied based on the fact that the required grading for
the proposed project was excessive beyond that needed for the primary use of
the lot.
Dr. Brown noted that the above action was also appealable to the Council.
He explained that the Commission did not feel that the proposed solution was
adequate to deal with the site in terms of the Development Code. He said
the Commission felt there were other solutions to the problem.
Mr. Hughes said the structure was not suitable for the lot.
STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said he wanted to confirm
the joint work session with the Rolling
Hills Estates Planning Commission which
was scheduled for February 4. He said proper notice would be given, but he
was not sure at this time'if it would be called a meeting or a work session.
He noted that the hearing on the environmental impact report for the Levitt
project was scheduled for January 13 before the Commission.
COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown asked how Mr. Hughes and Mr.
McTaggart felt about the most --recent
information received by staff concern-
ing recreational vehicles: vans, campers, etc.
Mr. Hughes said he was not an advocate of that type of ordinance. He said
the latest set of letters was not related to the previous one. He suggested
that the Commission review this as a group at a work session and determine
as a group what recommendation to make to the City Council. He said he
would be happy to weed through the package and pick out what he considered
to be the best and that he and Mr. McTaggart would put together some recom-
mendations if the Commission desired.
12/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
Dr. Brown suggested that at its next meeting the Commission schedule a date
for a work session.
Mr. Hinchliffe noted that the City of Kent, Washington, recently passed
verbatim Rancho Palos Verdes' ordinance on bedroom tax.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:25 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
January 13, 1981, at 7:30 p.m.
12/23/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-