Loading...
PC MINS 19811013M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Ad3ourned Meeting October 13, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planners Richard Thompson and Sandra Massa Lavitt and Assistant Planner Alice Berqquist Angus. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, as submitted, thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of September 22, 1981, and a six-month time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 8947. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 40640 Mr. Thompson said in trying to resolve CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 68 the issue of concern at the last meet - Portion of Coastal Subregion 1, ing, the applicant has reduced all adjacent to Palos Verdes Estates road grades to 10 percent or less and Landowner: M. Berry, Trustee driveway grades to 17 percent or less, Applicant: Burrell,,Ltd. and changed the access to lots 24 and 25. He said minor revisions were made to the grading plan but that the over- all concept design was the same. He said staff also reviewed the building plans for lots 1, 2, and 17. He said the problem with lot 17 could be handled with a zone change, per the City Attorney, and that the applicant has indicated he would like to pursue that. He said the City Attorney recommended that protection of the bluff face be achieved in the manner proposed by the applicant or with a common lot; he did not feel dedication was necessary. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Thompson said providing access to lots 24 and 25 from the existing road was discussed and the proposed common road should be approved. He said the map delivered by the applicant to the Commission members was primarily revised in terms of grading, that the de- sign was the same. He said staff did not have a chance to fully analyze it. He felt the central issue this evening was the grading for lots 18 through 23. He said staff felt that the fill proposed was too much and that the amount of fill was only to provide a view to the proposed lots. Mr. Hughes noted that this was a continued public hearing. Public hearing was opened. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, said he prepared the revised plan on Friday after reading the staff report. He reviewed the grading revisions and showed a cross section between the Drive and the ocean. He discussed Laurel Drive and said he would prefer access as proposed rather than separ- ate driveways from Marguerite Drive. He said all other alternatives result in steep driveways. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Burrell said the amount of fill was necessary for circulation purposes. Dr. Brown said with 7000 square feet of buildable area on lot 17, staff was concerned about a variance being necessitated for accessory structures. He said he agreed with staff that there was a problem. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Burrell said his criteria for building along the bluff was if a two-story home is built, the house would be moved back from the front property line. Mr. McTaggart said the closer the home was to the bluff the more potential there was for view obstruction. Mr. Hughes said it appeared that if the upper homes were placed on natural grade and the lower homes were kept at 16 feet, the amount of grading would be reduced, the driveway slopes would be minimal, and the upper lots would still have views. Mr. Thompson said staff was not convinced that there were no alternatives. He felt access could be provided to the lots off the road with less than 15 percent grades. He felt it was possible to design without the proposed fill. Dorothy Corliss, 3300 Paseo Del Mar, said there was a restriction of one home for one acre, and she was concerned about two-story homes being built there. She said the proposed development would be wall to wall houses. She said none of the existing homes were two-story, and she referred to deed restrictions which were located in the Vanderlip office when she sub- mitted her house plans. Mr. Hughes explained that the City's Zoning Code was uniform throughout the entire City and that the City could not deal with private restrictions. He suggested that Mrs. Corliss review all written agreements concerning the properties and determine what the rights of the property owners are. Constance Shea, 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West, invited the Commissioners to her home to see her view and the effects this project will have and to read the deed restrictions. Mr. Hughes advised the residents to research their CC&Rs, seek the advice of an attorney, and decide what course of action should be taken. He said if the CC&Rs are violated, it is a civil matter. Mr. W. Kildiszew, 1736 Chelsea Road, Palos Verdes Estates, said lots 1 and 2 were adjacent to the lot he was allowed to split last year. He said he was required to move the house and lower the structure in order to preserve the view of the ocean and the coastline. He felt the same criteria should be used for this project. Mr. McTaggart felt the Commission should request other cross sections from the applicant. Mr. Hughes concurred. Mr. R. M. Brockett, 3420 Palos Verdes Drive West, wondered if two-story homes were necessary because the lots were not large enough; He was con- cerned that a solid row of two-story homes would represent the coastline of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. David Croft, 3282 Paseo Del Mar, referred to a portion of the Residential Planned Development section of the Code which states that consideration shall be given to compatibility with surrounding land uses relative to proposed net densities, housing types, and buffering. He felt this project should follow the natural contours of the land and not exceed the 16 -foot height limit. He suggested that the farmland be placed where it would preserve views. He questioned two tennis courts instead of one and felt that the lots should conform in size to the existing lots in the area. Charles Forbes, 7343 Via Lorado, was concerned about the loss of view caused by a row of two-story homes. He felt the project could be redesigned to minimize the impacts on views. He suggested a more balanced cut and fill. Rudi Klein, 30108 Palos Verdes Drive West, shared the concerns of Dr. Croft and Mr. Kildiszew. Eleanore Wiedmann, 30032 Palos Verdes Drive West, said she shared the con- cerns of those who spoke tonight, particularly Mr. Kildiszew. She said 10/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- every home in the Berry Hill area had been built on one acre lots or larger. She said the photographs taken did not take into consideration the high growth along the Drive which should be cut down. She suggested that lot #1 be used for cliff access and lot #2 for the recreation and agriculture. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. RIKOa M At 9:45 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Burrell said structures on lots 1 and 2 would be kept at 16 feet. He said he prepared photographs instead of cross sections. He said a visual analysis had been prepared. He said the issue was whether people up on the hill who did not have a reasonable expectation of a view could keep their current view over the vacant land. He said the Coastal Plan required a Residential Planned Development for the site. He said view was not an issue, that the only issue is the fill and the blend of one and two story homes. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Burrell said moving the agriculture to lots 1 and 2 would be a disaster to the farmland because of the intensive use of the adjacent park. He was concerned with people coming in and de- stroying the farmland. He said everything had been done to preserve the view corridor, that none of the homes exceeded 28 feet. He said they took a worst case and studied every angle. He said he would prepare more cross sections, as the Commission desired. He said he had a copy of the original plan for the Berry Hill area. Mr. Hinchliffe expressed an interest in seeing that plan. It was the consensus of the Commission that they wanted more adequate and typical cross sections showing what would happen to the east of Palos Verdes Drive West. The Commission was interested in what would happen above the Drive and what the view angles were, and requested that the applicant relate the cross sections to the existing photographs. In response to Commission questions re the adjacent existing public park, Mr. Thompson said the whole bluff area between the Drive and lot #2 was very heavily used by foot traffic. He felt the adjacency to the parkland was a good reason to have larger setbacks. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff check with the City Attorney re prescriptive rights. Staff was also directed to explore with the City Attorney whether additional setback requirements could be imposed, necessitated by the adjacent park, and what impacts there may be. Mr. Hughes requested that staff put together appropriate wording for the control of accessory structures in the CC&Rs. It was the consensus of the Commission that a plan be prepared per staff's suggestion, locating eight single family homes in the view critical areas so that the lots in back gained a view. It was further the consensus of the Commission that a grading plan be pre- pared for Marguerite Road only which would indicate where the upper homes would sit on the lots. It was the consensus of the Commission that common driveway access from lots 24 and 25 was acceptable. Mr. Hughes advised the audience that the item would not be noticed again and that it was the responsibility of interested parties to contact staff re when this item would be discussed again. 10/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14495 Ms. Angus said the request was for the 29077 Palos Verdes Drive East division of an existing 43,708 square Landowner/Applicant: Mitts foot site into two parcels. She said there was an existing house on lot #1 and an existing barn on lot #2 which currently serves as a garage for lot #1. She said the barn exceeds the 12 - foot height limit for an accessory structure and the applicant has expressed the possibility of converting the barn into a residence. She said the lack of a garage on lot #1 posed a conflict with the Code, but there was suffi- cient lot area on which to construct the required garage. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Ms. Angus responded to Commission questions concerning the easement running through the middle of the lot, the setbacks, and the buildability of lot #2. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolution No. 81-54, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 14495 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 186 APPEAL Ms. Angus said the request was for an 29007 Briarhurst Drive addition above an existing garage. Appellant/Landowner: Costello She said the applicant felt that the view over the garage from 29005 Geronimo did not exist when the Plumleys bought their property and, therefore, should not be considered a view. Following a site inspection, staff determined that the proposed addition would sub- stantially obstruct the existing view from the Plumleys' residence. Staff., therefore, denied the request and recommended that the Commission deny the appeal on the same basis. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Angus said the neighbor cut the trees that were on his property to improve the view. She showed photo- graphs taken by staff and said the view from just the one home would be significantly obstructed by the addition. Tom Costello, 29007 Briarhurst Drive, said they needed the additional living space because since moving into the home, it had become necessary for his wife's mother to live with them. He felt the neighbor thought the addition would be on top of their existing two-story home. He said the addition would be about 500 square feet. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Ms. Angus said the addition could be accommodated on the ground level without encroaching into the required setback areas. Charles Plumley, 29005 Geronimo Drive, said his view over the subject garage had never been obstructed by trees. He said he contacted a real estate appraisal firm and was told that the addition would affect the view and would affect the appeal and value of his home. In response to Commission questions re his view to the north, Mr. Plumley pointed out that whatever view there was to the north could only be obtained by him if he walked outside to the far corner of his property; whereas, the view over the Costello's garage was available to him from inside his home. Ron McDowell, 28925 Geronimo Drive, said he was the Plumleys' neighbor to the north. He said he had a 180 -degree view and could see San Nicolas Island from his living room. He said the Plumleys had a view lot. 10/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. McTaggart asked if the applicant had investigated other locations on the property and his primary reason for building over the garage. Mr. Costello said the reason for going over the garage was that it was the most economical way and would better complete the floor plan, that the access would be much better. Mrs. Costello discussed the tree that they wanted to replace on their lot that was necessary since there was no other protection on the west side of their house against the hot sun. She said if the tree was there the neigh- bor would not be affected by the addition. Mr. Hughes felt the direction from the City Council on recent height varia- tion appeals has been contradictory, and he asked if there was a mechanism by which the Commission could just pass the project on to the Council with- out a decision and without the additional filing of fees. Mr. McTaggart did not feelAall of the options hadVbeen explore f_� Dr. Brown felt there would be a significant impairment. Mr. Hinchliffe said without all of the surrounding trees this project might not represent a significant view obstruction, but that the opponent could not control his neighbors' vegetation and -the view that he has left would be significantly obstructed by this project. Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Hinchliffe that as it exists today there would be significant view obstruction. He said the applicant had not chosen methods to eliminate the obstruction and that staff has indicated that other alternatives were possible. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to deny the appeal of Height Variation No. 186, thereby upholding staff's denial of the pro- ject, on the basis that there would be substantial view obstruction and the project was not proposed to be situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 51 AMENDMENT Ms. Lavitt said the request was for Palos Verdes Drive South at Seawolf architectural changes to the approved and Seahill (Tract 35040) project. She said the building foot - Landowner: Calwah Development Corp. prints have been redesigned which Applicant: C. Walton Assoc. A.I.A. causes alteration of the lot lines. She said the applicant has narrowed each unit which, in turn, has opened up greater sideyards between units. She said the length of the lots has been shortened to 90 feet. She said the units have been lowered into the grade creating 2:1 slopes along the rear of lots 15, 16, and 45 through 52; and, in turn, lowering the height of the retaining walls. She said the change in slope would create a gentle rolling scene which would open more light and ventilation into the structures. She noted that lowered retaining walls might cause future owners to attempt the construction of a garden wall on top of the retaining wall for privacy. She said the applicant proposed a change in the driveway access along Beachview to open up more landscaped area in front of each unit, which would affect the number of curb cuts and on -street parking. She said the proposed alteration to the roof design would open more of the public view since a major portion was essentially lowered. She said the current proposal alters the architectural style considerably and includes flower boxes outside the upper windows. Staff 10/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- felt that although the boxes add in the aesthetics of the structures, it was questionable whether they would be maintained by the owners or that they could be made sufficiently waterproof. Staff recommended that the boxes be removed from the plan. John Missell, Charles Walton Associates A.I.A., Inc., 103 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, representing Calwah Development Corporation, said the changes improved the architectural quality of the project. He said the applicant wanted the project to have more of a single family character. He referred to the architectural drawings on display and said the overall effect of the revision would create more views than what was originally approved. He said by eliminating the shared driveways they increased the courtyards for the units that do not have a view. He referred to the model which was on display. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Missell said there was a signifi- cant amount of interior parking which has not been changed. He said the units are about 500 square feet larger, but were narrower. He said off- street parking in driveways would be impossible with shared driveways because it would block access for the other person. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt felt that landscaping in the front was more appealing and that the direct access driveways added to the availability of guest parking. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with staff that the changes were positive. Mr. Hughes asked about conditioning the CC&Rs to insure that the garages do not get used for storage and thus limit the guest parking. Dr. Brown said the applicant was willing to go with the original lot dimen- sion and lot depth. He had no problem with the curb cuts, ridgeline heights or roof changes. He was chiefly concerned about grading. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the grading was affected all throughout the project with the revisions. Ms. Lavitt said it would 3ust affect the uphill units and that the creation of the 2:1 slopes would only be around the private open space areas in the rear. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve the requested revisions to Conditional Use Permit No. 51. Mr. McTaggart said he could not approve the project without a grading analy- sis. He also questioned how moving the buildings would affect the view. Ms. Lavitt noted that there was a grading analysis in the staff report. She said there was no change in grade other than behind the five units. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about the high pressure sodium street lights. He said the yellow lighting represented a significant environmental change and should have required an environmental impact report. He said there were changes to the aesthetics, environment, and safety. He particularly felt the aspects of safety should be looked at and that the public should have some input. He felt a major problem was that some of the lighting had converted and some had not; he felt it was a safety hazard going from one to the other. 10/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Councilman Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, said the street lights were in the Los Angeles County Lighting District, that the lighting in the District was being changed so it would all be uniform. He said there was no reason for any street light to shine into any home, that the light source should not be seen. Dr. Brown recommended that Mr. Hughes and Mr. McTaggart, as the Ordinance Subcommittee, look into what course of action, if any, should be taken. This was the consensus of the Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 1:15 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, October 27, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 10/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-