Loading...
PC MINS 19810310M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 10, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart,,','Brown LATE ARRIVAL: Baer Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planners Sandra Massa Lavitt and Alice Bergquist Angus. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar was unanimously carried, thereby ap- proving the following items: A) minutes of the meeting of February 10, 1981; B) minutes of the meeting of February 24, 1981; and C) one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 11896 and Conditional Use Per- mit No. 52. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37818 Mr. Thompson said this item was last CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 59 reviewed by the Commission on October North & east of Hawthorne Blvd. 14, 1980, at which time the public between Via Rivera & Via La Cresta hearing was continued and the appli- Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties cant was directed to improve the vehi- Applicant: Sikand Engineering cular access to the project prior to further deliberation. He said because the project has been revised, notice of tonight's meeting was sent. He said the applicant recently purchased the lot adjacent to the site which enables vehicular access from Via Rivera. He said the purchase of that lot increased the proposed number of units from 22 to 23. He said instead of locating all of the units on the lower portion of the property as originally planned, the applicant now proposes splitting the density, with 12 units sited on the lower portion and 11 units on the upper portion of the site. He said vehicular access to the upper portion is proposed from Via La Cresta. Staff recommended that the Commission direct the applicant to redesign the project to comply with the criteria listed in the staff report, or preferably locate the entire devel- opment on the lower portion of the property. In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Thompson said one of staff's main objections to the newest proposal is that the grading would be spread across more of the property instead of consolidating it and that a lot of the grading would be in Open Space Hazard (OH) zoning. He said before there was nothing proposed on the upper portion, that it was to be left in its natural state. He said one of the purposes of the OH zone was to preserve those steep areas of the hillside. Dr. Baer arrived at 7:42 p.m. Dr. Baer said the concern that came up during the environmental impact re- port (EIR) process re access from Via La Cresta the required blasting. He said because of that concern, the Environmental Committee unanimously felt the project should be kept in the lower area. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was re -opened. There being no one present to speak on the item, on motion of Mr. Hinch- liffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. McTaggart said by splitting the project, the impact on traffic at Via Rivera would be less. He felt there were some trade-offs that should be looked at. He said he did not like the terracing which was originally proposed. He felt the upper site would have some spectacular views -for future residents. At the request of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson put the original tentative map on display. Mr. Hughes said Mr. McTaggart had originally been concerned about the wall effect of the project when coming down Hawthorne Boulevard. He said it appeared that the lots were now proposed to be larger which indicated the structures would be large. He said it was very difficult to visualize what would happen to the knoll. He was also concerned about the creation of the five private roads. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said staff did a slope analysis at the beginning stages of the proiect and came up with the lines designating the OH area, that the lines were fixed. Dr. Brown and Dr. Baer were opposed to the splitting because of the•con- straints on the upper site with regard to access. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it was worth pursuing other access, that alternatives should be looked at for both concepts. Dr. Brown noted that the applicant was now present and asked if he had any comments. He explained that the public hearing had been continued. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, presented several renderings for dis- play. He said they acquired the adjacent site, thus allowing for access from Via Rivera rather than Hawthorne Boulevard. He Said another major con- cern had been the massive appearance of the previous plan which had all of the units on the lower portion of the site. He said they were now proposing a 4000 square foot envelope with a 1600 square foot footprint within that. He said that in addition to the homes there would be patios and that the rest of the area would be common open space, either natural or planted area. He said they were not proposing large single family lots although the plan submitted to staff did show a terraced look. He said they propose a natural contoured lot outside of the envelope. He said both the upper and lower sites would have public streets with driveways going up to the individual homes. He said the density in the upper portion would be less than that in the adjacent Via La Cresta area. Dr. Brown asked if staff had seen the renderings on display prior to to-' night's meeting. Mr. Thompson said no. He added that the plans which were submitted to staff scaled out to 8000 square foot lots. Mr. McTaggart said there were two different types of finish (wood and brick) shown on the renderings; he asked which would be used. Mr. Brower said they were proposing local stone for detail and shingle and wood. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said although staff had not yet reviewed the renderings on display, it was recommended that the Commission decide tonight whether or not it would allow homes on the upper 3/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- site and give direction to the applicant. He said there were time con- straints with this project. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried (with Mr. Hughes dissenting), the public hearing was re -opened. Mr. Hughes asked the reason for the time constraints. Mr. Thompson said this was the third time the Commission had reviewed the project and that major requests for changes have been made. He said the purchase of the adjacent property took a long time. He said decision must be made by the City Council before May 29, 1981. Mr. Hughes felt the Commission was being rushed if staff had not had the chance to look at the renderings. He suggested that all discussion tonight be confined to the question of whether or not the Commission liked the con- cept with development on the upper portion of the site. Mr. McTaggart said the reason he ask about the finish of the homes is because if they propose a shake Wnext to the canyon it would be a safety hazard and he would be concerned about that. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Brower said no blasting would be required on the site. Re going across OH zoning, he said it was a man-made bank which they would remove. He felt the current proposal offered better utilization of the site and was more complementary to the community. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, said the grading on the upper portion was mainly for access, that the houses conform to the natural slope. He said approximately balanced grading was proposed for the project. He said the geologist has indicated that no Jblasting was necessary. He showed an aerial view and pointed out they bout which Dr. Baer had expressed concern. Bill Walker, Richardson Nagy Martin, architects, said in the previous du- plex scheme they proposed two and three story units with probably 40 feet between buildings. He said they were now proposing one and two story' buildings at a minimum of 60 feet apart. He said splitting the development creates a much more desirable situation. He said they could make the units fit into the site much better by splitting the development and that the units would be much more desirable. Michael Yarymovych, 6947 Vallon Drive, said his house was on the corner at Via La Cresta and that he currently enjoyed a nice view. He said the homes would diminish his view of the ocean and he was opposed to development on the upper site because of view obstruction. Mr. Brower said he was not aware of blocking anyone's view and would cer- tainly re-evaluate placement of the homes to avoid view obstruction. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to continue pursuing the possibility of splitting the site with the understanding that the Commission aid not want the development of an access which would require high retaining walls. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would also like to see what other schemes could be done just using the lower site. He felt every alternative should be explored. Mr. Hughes said it appeared the units had become larger. He felt the ap- pearance from Hawthorne Boulevard would be the same. He did not want to give any approval of concept tonight. He said he would like to see a con- tour model of this site showing where the homes would be placed, where the road cuts would be, etc. 3/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Dr. Baer felt there should be some considerations of the view from existing r P sidenq 'aziLt� 64.a-r1a��a-c�c.,, The above motion ailed wi h the following vote: AYES: Hinchliffe, McTaggart NOES: Baer, Hughes, Brown ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes said he was not opposed to pursuing development of the upper site, that his objection with the motion was the implication that it would be ac- ceptable if they did not put in high retaining walls. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that they continue the item to the next agenda, if possible, and request that the applicant work with the staff on both alter- natives and bring back their best proposal for either or both concepts. Mr. McTaggart said they should consider the amount of traffic generated. He also felt the quality of life was an issue. It was the consensus of the Commission that they agreed with the criteria listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinchliffe requested that the applicant get the map in as soon as possi- ble. He said he would appreciate having the map in the agenda packet so the Commission could look at the site before the meeting. Dr. Brown directed that Mr. Hinchliffe's above suggestion be carried out. RECESS At 8:55 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:U2 p.m. with the same members present. GRADING NO. 507 Ms. Lavitt said the project site was Parcel 9, located south of 3845 located near the most eastern boundary Crest Road of East Crest Road and Rolling Hills. Applicant: George M. Sweeney She said although the total average Landowner: Kazem Vakili slope of the site is 48 percent, the buildable area at the top of the slope is 34 percent and is the future loca- tion of the residence. She discussed access to the site and said the appli- cant proposed 1695 cubic yards of grading and the creation of a maximum slope of approximately 2:1. She reviewed the proposed structure, driveway, and motor court. She said the area that would experience the most grading is actually the flattest part of the lot {25 percent slope} and is proposed to be a 50 percent slope. Staff recommended that the Commission direct the applicant to redesign the house so that it conforms with the criteria of the Grading Ordinance; or deny the grading application. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Ms. Lavitt said Parcel 10 (the smaller parcel) was currently under review to determine if it is a legal lot (under the Certificate of Compliance process). George Sweeney, 75 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes Estates, representing the owner, said the proposal represents the best solution with regard to the current building heights, etc., that stepping up with the slope would require exceeding the 30 -foot height limit. He said raising the motor court would create a top floor entry and would result in a great deal of the structure being buried, thereby cutting off natural light and ventilation. He said the footprint had been held to 2800 square feet to minimize impact to the site, and he did not feel the proposed grading was excessive. He referred to the exhibits on display and pointed out that the Code allows for access to the site. 3/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. McTaggart said the Grading Ordinance did not allow created slopes to exceed existing slopes. He said the structure was too large for the site. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it was a self-imposed hardship because of the size of the house being proposed. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, said access implied a place to enter a site but that vehicles also had to be able to get out which required a turn -around. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the Commission adopted the staff recommendation, thereby directing the applicant to redesign the house so that it conformed with the criteria of the grading section of the Code. It was the determination of the Com- mission that the grading was excessive beyond that necessary for the pri- mary use and the nature of the grading created contours which were not reasonably natural. Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 63 Ms. Angus said the request was to 2810 Colt Road allow an existing 54 -inch high fence Applicant/Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. which was constructed in the easement Frederick Boettcher area just outside the existing shrub- bery line, and to allow three 10 -foot high gates and 20 -foot high flag posts which were constructed in the front and street side setbacks. She said the applicant requested the fencing to provide safety for his child and to keep his dogs within the confines of his property. She reviewed the four re- quired findings and staff's comments, as listed in the staff report; staff was unable to make any of the required findings. She said the applicant was also requesting that the fee be waived due to administrative error, but that staff knew of no administrative error that had occurred. Staff recommended denial of the variance based on the lack of evidence to justify the necessary findings for approval, and that the Commission require the fencing in the easement be removed and the gates and posts be cut to a maximum of 42 inches. She said the applicant could apply for a minor ex- ception permit which, if granted, would allow the fencing to be moved to the setback area and the gates and posts would only have to be cut down to a maximum of six feet. Staff further recommended denial of the request for fee waiver due to the fact that no administrative error had occurred. Mr. Hinchliffe said tnere appeared to have been a reluctance on the part of the applicant to comply and asked if staff felt there had been any mis- understanding. Ms. Angus did not feel there was any misunderstanding. Public hearing was opened. Frederick Boettcher, 2810 Colt Road, requested that the meeting be extended as they did not receive notice of the meeting until Saturday and did not have time to get the supporting neighbors together. Dr. Brown said the property owners within a 300 -foot radius were notified fifteen days prior to this meeting and there was also notification in the newspaper. Director Higntower checked the file and said the applicant did not put nis name on the property owners list and, therefore, was not noticed. She said what he received Saturday was the agenda and staff report. Ms. Angus said she had estimated the probable meeting date to the person submitting the application. 3/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- cf-�3-i ��� t Rd�-1.L.4..r �--,�1� y�Gt.tci � .C�.`Q3 ��G�-�—ic-�°-�.u..� F✓J' !� �J ��U�' �t--� On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, T conde bd y Dr ~Baer, and carried (with Mr. Hughes dissenting), the Commission denied the applicant's request for a continuance. Mr. Boettcher said the poles were to present an archway as is seen on many ranches. He said the reason for the 42 -inch fence restriction at the front property line is for traffic visibility, and that the existing shrubbery stands 10 to 12 feet high. He said the fence is hardly visible now because the shrubbery has grown out again. He said this was a private road main- tained by the property owners. He said as a civil engineer he was sure the City would never take it as a public road and he was also sure that the property owners would not want it to be a public road. He said there were only two gates, not three. He said the posts were 16 feet high and that he intended to cut them off at 14 feet high and put in a cross bar. He said the height of the gate was the same height as the fence. He said he checked with the City and verified that a permit was not necessary to build a fence and that, therefore, he constructed the kind of fence he wanted. He said the reason he did not immediately respond when the City notified him of the problem was because he had many business problems which required him to be' out of town. He said alsoatthe time he still had not completed the plan. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern that the applicant had received nine notifi- cations from the City over the last year and yet continued to proceed w4rtr with the fence. Marie Poole, 2652 Colt Road, felt the fence should be on the other side of the shrubbery and not on th easement. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 81-34, thereby denying Variance No. 63, based on the inability to make any of the required findings. Mr. McTaggart wanted the record to reflect that the highest portion of the fence is 10 feet and, therefore, the gates are considered to be 10 feet high. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously -carried, the Commission denied the applicant's request for waiver of the fee for ad- ministrative error because the Commission found no evidence of administra- tive error. Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal both of the above decisions to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower brought up the issue of how to measure lots which came up during consideration of the Mustang Road project. She said it had been referred to the Ordinance Subcommittee in August of last year. Sne said the Commission should come up with some answers soon, that there was another parce.i map on that street to be pro- cessed. Dr. Brown asked that Mr. nugnes and Mr. McTaggart come back to the next meeting with some answers. In response to a question by Dr. Broom, Director Higntower said the Watabe antenna had been removed. 3110181 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE6 -6-� -itA�2 , e��-e�La-2-�-�-u a�a,� �, /Ice_., . COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown reported on the meeting with the Mayor on Saturday. He said they discussed the Traffic Committee's re- view of the Levitt project, that there would be a single access on Crenshaw and a substantial increase in parking on the Rancho Palos Verdes side. He said the accident report for February indicated 24 reported accidents. He said other discussions included Abalone Cove, the Moore & Taber report, low and moderate income housing, the Ridgegate Drive vacation request, the Miraleste Hills' upcoming request for street vacation, and the Coastal Con- servancy grant being pursued by the City for Point Vicente Park. He said the Palos Verdes Estates' Park and Recreation Committee reviews landscaping plans. He said the chairpersons of the Planning Commissions of all four Peninsula cities would be meeting at his home to discuss bootlegging, traffic, view protection, geology, and coastal constraints for the two affected cities. He said the chairperson of Rolling Hills was interested in also discussing the disposition of school sites. Dr. Brown said Mrs. Bacharach heard of a city north of San Francisco that brought in an architect as a consultant for the development of low and moderate income housing and wondered about doing something like that in this city. Mr. Hinchliffe said Orange County had a whole set of ordinances to deal with the subject. He said when people seek tract approval they either provide affordable housing within the tract or donate a specific amount of money for development elsewhere. MOW6111:3001miNky At 10:35 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 24, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 3/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-