Loading...
PC MINS 19810428has) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting April 28, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 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 Associate Planner Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planners Sandra Massa Lavitt and Jonathon Shepherd. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approv- ing a one year time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 57. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37818 Mr. Thompson noted that this was a con - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 59 tinued item and briefly reviewed the North & east of Hawthorne Blvd. revised plan. He said lot #6 had been between Via Rivera & Via La Cresta moved away from the ridge to a more Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties satisfactory location, closer to the Applicant: Sikand Engineering cul-de-sac. He said lot #1 had been moved further away .from the existing residence on Via to Cresta. He said lot #12 had been moved further away from the natural drainage course that was proposed to be preserved. He referred to the pad elevations as shown on the plan and discussed the proposed access and the area proposed to be owned in common. He said the hillside units were all under 3000 square feet. Staff recommended that the applicant reduce the ridgeline of lot #1" to a maximum elevation of 495 feet, and move lots #11 and #20 away from the natural drainage course. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the driveway slope and felt they should not impose a condition to lower the ridgeline if it would adversely affect the driveway. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said the difference between the pad elevations of lots #1 and #2 was three feet. He said the extent that grading is permitted in Open Space Hazard zoning is for the road. Mr. McTaggart asked the distance of the driveway on lot #1. Mr. Thompson said it was 25 feet. Dr. Baer referred to the letter distributed tonight from the Nelson's, 30856 Via La Cresta, concerning lowering the ridgeline elevation from 498 to 495. Mr. Hinchliffe said it was difficult to require the applicant to do some- thing without knowing what the ramifications might be. He said a lot of grading would be required for such a small difference in elevations. Mr. Thompson referred to -the view analysis and noted that the applicant disputed his findings and felt that the actual ridge elevation of 498 was actually below what staff has shown. Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing. Mr. Hughes arrived at 7:56' p.m. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, presented overlays which showed the way the proposed units would look. He said they were willing to accept the 495 ridgeline as long as prior to approval of building plans they could pro- vide evidence demonstrating that the overlay accurately represents the way it would look at 498. He said 498 was six feet below the view line. He said the concerned residents would also receive a substantially wider water view after the completion of the grading. Re removal of dirt from the site, he referred to the condition requiring approval of a grading plan. Re Mr. McTaggart's concern about the 15 -foot differential, he felt they could accommodate the 15 -foot change in elevation from the garage pad to the ridgeline. He said there were other alternatives such as a flat roof, separating the garage from the living area, or possibly reducing the road elevation. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about the steepness of the driveway and wondered if there were others like it. Mr. Brower said the engineer would address those concerns when he fine tunes the map for final approval. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, said they lowered the ridgeline as far as it could be lowered. He said they would accept as a condition of approval that the ridge be no higher than that shown on the exhibit presented tonight. He proposed doing a more accurate view analysis with the proper equipment. He discussed the drainage issue, street grading, and adjusting the lot lines of lots #11 and #20. In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Marks said they would place catch basins in such locations as to minimize the water on the downhill side of the street. He said the street could also be slightly tipped. He said they would attempt to pick up the water at the bottom of the driveway and carry it out. Mr. Hughes said the Commission had asked for a number of items at the last meeting such as cross sections showing the road and a detailed analysis of the grading, its length of time, impact, etc. Mr. Marks said he discussed the issues with the grading contractor who went out to the site, reviewed the proposal, and came up with varying alterna- tives. He said he received the information back from the grading contractor today and did not have time to prepare an exhibit for this meeting. Mr. Hughes said he was very concerned about what the finished grading on the knoll would look like, and also the potential impact of grading on the community. He asked how they proposed to take materials off the hill. He said he had hoped for something more detailed this evening showing how they planned to grade the hill, some reasonable sections showing the inital grade, the proposed grade, and ridgeline heights. The rest of the Commissioners concurred with Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about the possible ripple effects from lowering the pad elevation on lot #1. Ricky King, 30764 Via La Cresta, expressed concern about the effect this project would have on the existing wildlife on the site. Dr. Brown said that concern was addressed in the Environmental Impact Report and noted that a large portion of the site would remain as open space. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Thompson said the deadline requires that a final decision by the City Council be made on this project by May 29. He said if a decision cannot be made by that date, the City must deny the project or the applicant must 4/28/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- E • withdraw the applications. He said a solution might be to advertise for the Council's second meeting in May and schedule this item for the May 12 Commission meeting. He said at that time if the Commission is still dis- satisfied with the plan they could disapprove it. Mr. McTaggart did not understand the significance of moving the lot lines on lots #11 and #20 but not the structures. Mr. Thompson said the lot lines are currently proposed to be in the path of the drainage course. He said the homes were close but could be accommo- dated. He said, however, the homes could be moved a couple feet away just to be sure. Mr. Brower said they would be prepared to come back on the 12th of May with the information requested by the Commission. RECESS At 8:47 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:52 p.m. with the same members present. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 170 APPEAL Ms. Lavitt said staff denied this re - 6913 Vallon Drive quest for an addition above the garage Appellant/Landowner: J. Nunn because it would significantly impair the primary view from the adjacent residence. She said also that it was not designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction. She said the addition would elevate the maximum ridge above the garage to 25 feet in height. She said the ad]acent property owner has, as defined in the Code, a view lot and that this addition would obstruct that view. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal due to significant view im- pairment. Mr. Hughes said the letter from the applicant indicated a question about whether staff's decision was based upon the applicant's original submission or his revision. Ms. Lavitt said staff has the latest set of plans and the decision was based on those. Dr. Baer asked what other alternatives were available for the addition. Ms. Lavitt said a one-story addition to the rear or a second story continua- tion at the rear were possibilities. John Nunn, applicant, felt their request was reasonable and justified. He said their family has grown since they moved into the house in 1966 and that he also now needs an office in his home. He said they liked their home and that it was not economically feasible for them to move. He said the proposed location was the only logical space for the addition, that any other location would severely alter the floor plan, decrease the open space and cause gross financial hardship. He said two other additions over a garage were granted on this street and that almost every home is two-story so there would be no impact to the neighborhood. He did not feel there was substantial view obstruction. He presented various exhibits, including an overlay and a map of the area, and said the original County Assessor records indicate that the neighbor's lot was not considered to be a view lot. He said they would agree, if necessary, to a roof line modification, using a hip roof instead of gable. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Nunn said with the current proposal they would use the same stairway and would not have to knock out any walls. He said the hip roof design would not be as architecturally pleasing, but they they would agree to it in order to obtain approval. 4/28/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Maureen Nunn said they have worked within the realm of all possibilities and that there was no other way to construct the addition. She felt the addition would not substantially obstruct the primary view of the neighbors. She said the information they reviewed concerning assessed value, etc., indicates that the neighbor's home does not qualify as a primary view lot. Burlyn Rogers, 6893 Vallon Drive, spoke in support of the request and said his view was totally obliterated by the tree planted by the Cayleys. Mr. Hughes requested that the speakers confine their testimony to the appli- cation being considered tonight. He said the Commission could not deal with tree trimming. Jim Gamble, 6777 Vallon Drive, said he received a height variation about three years ago. He said it would be very difficult for the applicant to build on the back side of the house. He said people were concerned when his project was going through but that now everyone complements him on the addi- tion. Tom Turner, 6914 Vallon Drive, said he lives directly across the street from the applicant and had no objection to the proposed project. He said what did concern him was the permanent green metalic structure that has been in the Cayleys driveway for three years. Paul Cayley, 6905 Vallon Drive, handed out written copies of his presenta- tion to the Commission and staff. He said he would not waste anyone's time countering the comments made tonight by some of the neighbors, since they did not relate to the issue under -discussion this evening. He said the pro- posed project did not meet all of the conditions as required by Code. He said a local realtor estimated the reduction in market value of his home if the Nunn's addition is built to be $50,000. He felt that substantiated the significance of the view obstruction. Irene Cayley said on a clear day she could sit almost anywhere in her living room and see Catalina -and the boats on the water. She said the proposed addition would totally obstruct that view. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Por. Hinchliffe, to deny the appeal and uphold staff's decision on Height Variation No. 170. Dr. Baer said he walked all along the Cayleys living room and could see Catalina, that they have a magnificant view. Mr. Hinchliffe said by the Code definition the Cayleys do have a view and that it is considered to be a primary view. Mr. McTaggart said just because the land is there does not mean it would be practical to construct the addition in the rear. He did not feel there would be significant impairment of view with the hip roof. Mr. Hughes said he could not make the 'required findings. In his opinion - there -was significant -view obstruction. Dr. Brown concurred. Mr. Hinchliffe said the change to the roof line was an improvement. He sug- gested tabling the matter to see if there was another alternative available to the Nunns which could include the change from a gable to hip roof. Mr. Hughes withdrew his previous motion and Mr. Hinchliffe withdrew his second. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded the Commission tabled this item until aged the appellant to seek a solution. by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the -first meeting in June and encour- 4/28/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. Nunn said the continuation was acceptable to him but thought that to- night's submittal significantly changed the situation. Dr. Brown explained that the Commission could not make any decision on what was submitted tonight, that all submittals would have to first be reviewed by staff. He said the Commission felt that perhaps if the applicant worked more closely with staff and tried to communicate with the neighbors a solu- tion could be reached. SIGN PERMIT NO. 123 Mr. Shepherd said the request was for 20 Miraleste Plaza a free-standing pylon sign in the land - Applicant: Highland Federal scaped area in the northwest corner of Savings & Loan Assn. the property to identify the commercial Landowner: Donald Pierson complex, which houses five businesses. He said the total street frontage was 170 feet and the complex was set back over 40 feet from the front property line. He said there are eight existing signs in the complex with a total of 127.5 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the sign permit for the reasons listed in the staff report. Cesar Ruiz, representing Highland Federal, 6301 N. Figueroa, Los Angeles, said in total, Miraleste Plaza is three square blocks. He said this project represents about one-third of that and is located in the center of the Plaza. He said to the right of this section the stores are bAilt right up to the street which blocks visibility of the savings and loan when approaching in an easterly direction. Andrew Joncich, Highland Federal Savings & Loan, said they were trying to give unity to the five businesses. He said they were not trying to attract with the sign, but rather identify the business and its location. Mr. Hinchliffe said he appreciated the efforts to upgrade the signing in the Miraleste area, but felt it would require a more comprehensive solution. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the Commission denied Sign Permit No. 123 for the following reasons: 1) The site presents no exceptional circumstances that cannot be accommodated within the existing Code re- quirements; 2) The complex fails to meet the 200 feet or more front- age requirement; and 3) The existing signs are more than adequate to provide identification to the businesses in the complex. Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen days. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 3649 Mr. Thompson said the request was for VARIANCE NO. 53 the division of an existing 27,831 5001 east of Crest & Palos Verdes square foot vacant parcel into two Drive East substandard -sized lots. He said the Landowner: Dorothy Carr zoning is RS -2 which requires a minimum Applicant: South Bay Engineering lot size of 20,000 square feet. He re- ferred to the comparison chart in the staff report. Staff felt the variance was justified in this case because the proposed lot size and configuration is consistent with surrounding lots in the same zoning district, and each lot would have full street frontage providing adequate vehicular access. Staff determined that the surrounding views would not be adversely affected; the analysis was based on each home built at the highest elevation possible. Staff recommended approval of the tentative parcel map and variance subject to the conditions of the draft resolutions. 4/28/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Thompson said he did a study of the size of the surrounding lots and found that they ranged from 11,000 to 13,000 square feet. Mr. McTaggart said if the zoning is wrong forithe area perhaps the appro- priate request would be for a General Plan amendment and zone change. Public hearing was opened. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, said they first talked about rezoning but then decided it would be considered spot zoning. He said the lot was flat, and he answered various questions of the Commission. Mr. Hinchliffe asked how many lots in the 11,000 to 13,000 range existed in close proximity to this property. Mr. Thompson said there were approximately 30 lots of that size in the general area. Dr. Brown asked about the required curb cut on the Drive. Mr. Thompson said right now they could have a curb cut on Palos Verdes Drive East. He did not anticipate any great impact. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion to adopt Resolution No. 81-42, thereby granting Variance No. 53 based on the findings suggested by staff. The mo-' tion died -for lack of a second. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to adopt Resolution No. 81-42, thereby denying Variance No. 53 based upon the fact that the project would create another point of access on Palos Verdes Drive East and the General Plan discourages access to be taken off a major arterial. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Dr. Brown said this action was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days and noted that denying the variance request eliminated the need for ac- tion on the tentative parcel map application. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Thompson said the information on Housing Element this item, contained in the agenda packets, was provided by the new Asso- ciate Planner. He said it was just for information, that no Commission discussion was required. He also referred the Commission to the memo which was distributed tonight regarding the first Housing Committee meeting, which was scheduled for May 14 at 7:30 p.m. There were no objections to the scheduled meeting date. ADJOURNMENT At 11:05 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, May 12, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 4/28/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-