PC MINS 19810526•
M*INUTES
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
May 26, 1981
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,E:,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown.
PRESENT: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown
ABSENT: Hinchliffe
Also present were Assistant Planners: Sandra Massa Lavitt-and Alice Bergguist
Angus.
Dr. Brown said he had the honor of turning over the gavel to the new Chair-
man, Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes took his seat as Chairman of the Commission and
thanked Dr. Brown for his fine service during the past year.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the Commission determined to not consider any item this evening that is not
underway before 10:00 p.m.; that all items not considered this evening would
be carried over to the next meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr.
McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the
minutes of the meeting of May 12, 1981
were pulled from the Consent Calendar, to be considered at the end of the
meeting.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the amended Consent Calen-
dar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of
May 14, 1981.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75
Ms. Lavitt said the Commission at its
4140 Lorraine Road
last meeting
approved the
request for
Applicant/Landowner: R. Hansen
tennis court
lighting and
that staff
prepared the
appropriate
resolution and
conditions to
consider at
tonight'g
meeting.
In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said staff felt windscreens
could be a consideration at the end of the one year time period if they proved
to be necessary. She said a condition requiring windscreens could be added
to the resolution if the Commission so desired. She said staff recommended
additional wording at the end of condition #3 to read "or have more than one
bulb per fixture."
Mr. Hughes felt they should not require windscreens if they are not necessary.
He said the intent of condition #7 was that the conditions of the conditional
use permit be reviewed at the end of one year and that any changes to the con-
ditions -as -may be necessary,could-be made at -,that time. He suggested addi-
tional wording at the end of condition #7 to read "and may be,changed as
found appropriate."
Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to add a condition that
windscreens will be required at the discretion of the Director of Planning if
complaints of sigiiif icaft;F=uff- site illumination or noise are received and -,t--4a-t
windscreens must be installed within 60 days of notification by the Director of
Planning.
Mr. Hughes felt condition #7 covered that concern since at,the end of the first
year the Director would review all of the conditions and make any necessary
changes. He suggested adding "including windscreens" to that condition.
The above motion and second were withdrawn.
Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by,Dr. Baer, to adopt Resolution No.81-44,
thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 75 subject to the conditions of
Exhibit "A", as amended this evening.
Roll call vote was a follows:
AYES: Baer, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hinchliffe
Mr. Hughes advised of'the right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within fifteen calendar days.
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 536 Ms. Angus said the Commission at its
6853 Alta Vista Drive last meeting directed the applicant to
Lot 18, Tract No. 32673 look at the alternatives of recessing
Landowner: Mr.& Mrs. Lee Gintz the court deeper into the slope, terrac-
Applicant: Tom Milostan ing the slope to'eliminate the need for
retaining walls, or reducing the size of
the court. She said the concern with the
original plan was the excessive number and'height of retaining walls and the
resultant need for fencing that would require a variance. She said the appli-
cant submitted two schemes: scheme #2 which involves terracing the slope with
a series of small retaining walls and 3:1 slopes; and scheme #3"which involves
recessing the court deeper into the slope. She said the applicant did not
think scheme #2 was feasible, that it involves a great amount of cut and no
fill and that the terracing will reduce the remaining lot area available. She
said the applicant submitted cross sections for scheme #3 which indicate that
the rear property line side of the court would be flush with existing grade at
the highest portion, but a 3-1/2 foot retaining wall would still be required
for the lower portion and, therefore, a variance for the fencing would still
be required. To alleviate the need for a variance, she said the court would
have to recessed an additional 3-1/2 feet. She said it was difficult to reduce
the amount of grading and retainingwallsnecessary to create a pad area for
the court. Staff recommended that the Commission consider whether this lot is
feasible for a tennis court and discuss which alternatives, if any, are accept-
able.
In response to Commission questions, Ms. Angus said staff did not think the lot
could accommodate the tennis court, pool, and house.
Lee Gintz, 6769 Alta Vista Drive, saidtheofficial tennis'court size was 120 x
60 feet and that they already reduced this court to 110 x 55 feet. He presented
photographs to the Commission'of his property and various walls, etc., on
neighboring properties. He said the house was designed to be U-shaped, with
the "U" facing the tennis court, and a very small pool in the center of the "U".
Mr. McTaggart said there was a potential for view obstruction, depending on
the placement of the house. He explained the City's height ordinance.
Mr. Hughes said in addition to the City's height restrictions there may be
CC&Rs concerning views. He suggested that the applicant may want to look at
the total project before the Commission reaches a d6cision on the tennis court.
Dr. Brown agreed with the staff report and said he would not be able to make
the required findings for a fence variance.
Mr. McTaggart said the retaining wall would only be visible from the golf course.
He felt there was a potential scheme that would eliminate the need for a
fence variance and still allow the court to be constructed.
Mr. Hughes said there were conflicting goals in the General Plan,,that it calls
for recreational uses and not to do excessive grading. He said the first ques-
tion to address is whether or not the lot is appropriate for a tennis court.
5/26/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
If so, he felt the section of the General Plan encouraging private recreational
uses would take precedence and the difficult slope of the lot would be justi-
fication for making the variance findings.
Mr. McTaggart felt the site was appropriate for a tennis court but said he
would like it to be kept as low as possible. He noted that the lot was ad-
3acent to a large recreation area (the golf course).
Dr. Brown agreed that a court could be put on the site but did not agree that
it followed that a variance could be approved. He was also concerned about
possible view impairment and felt all concerns should be part of the considera-
tion.
Mr. McTaggart felt they should not have a 10 -foot fence right on the property
line, but instead should landscape in that area.
Dr. Baer suggested a balanced cut and fill.
Ms. Angus confirmed that the Commission was suggesting scheme #3 in the lower
section but breaking up the high retaining wall and that the 10 -foot -fence
variance would be considered later at which time view impairment would be con-
sidered.
Mr. Hughes said the Commission felt,the courtwas appropriate for the lot and
felt some alternative mix of the two schemes would result in a tennis court
without a variance or the findings to be more easily made. He advised the
applicant to work with the staff and come back to the Commission with the
revised proposal. He further'suggested that the applicant discuss with staff
at the same time the building restrictions for the house.
RECESS
At 8:56 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 9:03 p.m
with the same members present.
VARIANCE NO. 65 Ms. Angus said on May 13, 1980 a site
4170 Maritime Road plan review was approved for a deck
Applicant/Landowner: Shultz with a maximum height of 30 inches with-
out a handrail but that in light of the
Coastal Setback Zone restriction, the
permit was inappropriately issued. She said subsequent to that date a site
inspection revealed a deck with handrail and windscreen with a height of 8
feet in the rear, a deck without handrail but exceeding 30 inches in height
along the side, extensive grading beyond the limits of the rear property line,
and a new property line wall along the side -with a height in excess of 6 feet.
She said all of the grading was located beyond the applicant's rear property
line, in the Coastal Setback zone, in a designated Open Space Hazard zone.
She reviewed -the required findings and staff's responses for each of the
variance items, as listed in the staff report.' Staff recommended that the
Commission deny the request for grading based upon failure to justify findings
A & B; deny the request for the wall that exceeds 6 feet in height along the
side property line due -to the lack of evidence to justify findings A & B; and
if the Commission decides to allow building in Coastal Zone la, that the
request for the rear deck be approved since all of the findings can be made,
and that the request for the side deck be denied since finding B cannot be
made. Staff further recommended that the applicant be required to restore
the slope to natural, cut the wall to 6 feet and remove the sideyard deck.
Staff also recommended that the rear deck be allowed to remain'since a permit
was issued and all of the findings can be made.
Mr. Hughes noted that there were three items under this variance: the deck and
windscreen, the deck and wall, and all of the grading and structures that
exist on the slope off the property. He asked why the Commission was con-
sidering an activity not on the applicant's property. He said Palos Verdes
Properties should be involved in any variance request concerning their property.
He suggested that staff notify Palos Verdes Properties that a violation exists
on their property and that the Commission only deal with the other two items
tonight.
Public hearing was opened.
5/26/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 3-
Richard Cooling, 2503 Eastbluff Drive, Newport Beach, said the glass wind-
screen did not hinder views of the ocean. He said the side deck was a con-
tinuation of the patio, that the patio wall was continued at the same height.
He said construction permits were issued for both the,rear deck and the side
deck. He said the neighbors next door sent a letter in support of the wall.
Ms. Angus said she spoke with,the County. She said the applicant applied for
approval for the rear deck only but the plans also showed the wall and the
other deck. She said the County did issue a permit for the wall but had no
record of its height. She showed the original application to the Commission.
Mr. Hughes said if something was missed by staff on the drawingsandthe County
did issue permits, he did not particularly see it as the applicant's fault.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was continued.
Re the-- side-:-Ta-r-d7deck and wall, Mr. Mc Taggart - said it seemed clear that if
a permit was issued the findings could be made"as administrative error. This
was the consensus of the Commission.
It was further the consensus of the Commission'that the findings could be made
for the rear deck, per the staff report.
Mr. Hughes said the Commission determined that an administrative error had
yard` - _k
been made on -the side-� fd-f�_fid7th'aif� �fndiAqr§�6661A-AA mader dor the wind-
screen on the rear deck.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the Commission requested staff to notify Palos Verdes Properties that they
apparently have such appurtenances as a series of retaining walls of pipe
and board construction that have been illegally placed in the Coastal Setback
and request their response immediately.
Mr. Hughes directed that the appropriate 'resolutions be brought back for the
rear deck and side yeard deck at the next meeting.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14369 Ms. Lavitt said the applicant was pro -
VARIANCE NO. 68 posing to�divide the site into six lots,
Silver Spur & Silver Spur each to include an office structure and
Applicant: S.P. Devco a portion of the parking. She said the
City Engineer had reviewed the map and
recommended denial pursuant to the section
of the Subdivision Map Act relating to physical suitability of the site. She
said if approved the City Engineer recommends that a restricted use be placed
on what is now Parcel 6 based on the geology of the site and that the topography
renders it l'inbuildable, but that the applicant has been reluctant to agree to
the combination of lots 5 and 6. She said the City could prevent future develop-
ment of lot 6 by combining the parcels and adding a note on the map making it a
restricted use area. She said the design of the project includes the construc-
tion of a parking structure which would extend from the proposed parcel #3
across the proposed parcels 4 and 5. She said :requiring a lot line setback
would not be practical in this case. Staff recommended denial of the parcel
map pursuant to the City Engineer's report stating the unacceptability of
creating a lot that is not geologically and topographically developable. Should
the Commission approve the map, staff recommended the combination of lots 5
and 6. It was further recommended that the applicant dedicate development
rights to the City on slopes greater than 35 percent.
Public hearing was opened.
Matt Brunning, 727 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, S.P. Devco,
questioned the constitutionality of the City requiring development rights
and the applicant required to pay the taxes. He suggested that if the Com-
mission approve the parcel map it not place restrictions on lot 6 since there
is no development approved and the only thing that would do is tie the hands
of a future Commission.
Ms. Lavitt said the dedication to the City would only be on Parcel 6, that
there would be a restricted use on the other areas.
In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Brunning said in order to legally
lease separate office buildings to separate people, they must have a parcel
map. He said these are various single use buildings rather than leasing offices
within a building. He said the parking structure would be maintained by
one individual.
Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the portion of the site being'sold and if
the new owner would have to follow the conditional use permit.
Dr. Brown noted that the applicant was not against restricted use behind lots
1 - 5, but was opposed to the combination of parcels 5 and 6.
Mr. Brunning confirmed that to be correct.
Dr. Brown said geologically lot 6 was a problem and that the City must pro-
tect itself.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that they could not develop anything that was not ap-
proved, that there area lot of conditional use permits in the City. He
said people may sell`the property but the conditions for operation would
still apply, that the conditions run with the land.
Dr. Baer said the conditions go with the property, that each owner in buying
the lot is obligated to conform to the conditional use permit.
Dr. Brown proposed a motion,, seconded by Dr. Baer, to continue this matter until
the City Attorney reviews concerns relative to the control of the site through.,
the conditional use permit on a parcel map such as this, maintenance of the
parking structure, requirements of the laws for leasing, and where the law is
cited.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Baer amended the abovemotion to say that the City Attorney
should review the subject application with all of the concerns of the Com-
mission.
Mr. McTaggart said his real concern was with the parking structure. He
questioned who would repair it in the event of an earthquake or'fire, etc.,
and whether the City should allow this site to be split up in a haphazard
manner.
Dr. Brown said the Commission wanted to protect the interest of the City
relative to the control of the conditional use permit and would like the
opinion of the City Attorney.
Mr. Hughes said he saw little difference between -this request and a Resi-
dential Planned Development where there are shared facilities which are
covered in the CC&Rs. He concurred with having the City Attorney review it
but felt the request was standard.
The above motion was unanimously approved.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded"by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was continued.
Dr. Brown said he was not_ uncomfortable with the parcel map with restrictions
_suggested by staff, subject` tb the - Gpi_n�ion- -of -the Cit -y- Attor'n e --y. He felt
there should be restricted use on'the site so that no development can occur
in the unapproved areas.
Mr. McTaggart did not see how with the City Engineer recommending denial the
Commission shouldapprove the map. He said if they approve a parcel map not
acceptable to the City Engineer they aremakingthemselves IP
i,_6-Sonsibre- for
the consequences.
Mr. Hughes had mixed feelings in that theywere restricting a piece of land
that at some future time may be stabilizable. He said, however, that he
did not know how to deal with it except to combine lot 6 with lot 5 and that
it could be split at a future time if it is stabilized. This was the con-
sensus of the Commission.
It was further the consensus of the Commission to place a restricted use on
the map, that the restrictions be spelled out, rather than dedication of
development rights.
5/26/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
It was also the unanimous consensusof the Commission that the required
variance findings could be made.
Mr. Hughes directed staff to bring back the resolution for the parcel map
and variance along with the opinion from the City Attorney and suggested
that staff xerox a copy of the related section of the Subdivision Map Act.
Mr. McTaggart requested that staff ask the City Attorney his opinion of
that section of the Subdivision Map Act.
STAFF REPORTS Ms. Lavitt referred to the memo concern-
ing neighborhood delivery and collection
boxes. She said in essence it said the
post office had backed off of its previous demand. -She said-,-thev--could not
get cluster mail boxes, that` -they_ were 6-n- S"a6k order; and the
e la-Eest requir-e—
ment is for double mail boxes on a single post at,the property line.
COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown said at the last meeting Mr.
McTaggart had asked about filing a com-
plaint when contractors violate the Codes.
He wondered if the situation had been discussed with the City Attorney.
Dr. Brown asked about the flier on "How to be More Effective Planning Com-
missioners."
Mr. Hughes said out of each of those sessions, one or two good ideas come.
He said the material presented is good but more important than that was the
interaction with other Planning Commissions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES on motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr.
McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the
minutes of the meeting of May 12, 1981
were approved with the following amendment: page 1, paragraph 3, line 3,
should read "...the Commission determined,to-not consider any item this even-
ing that is not underway before 10:00 p.m. and established..."
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:40 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to -Tuesday,
June 9, 1981 at 7:30 P.M.
5/26/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-