Loading...
PC MINS 198110270 M I N U T E S CDS, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 27, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: Baer ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planner Alice Bergquist Angus. COMMUNICATIONS Director Hightower said the appeal of Height Variation No. 191 had been pulled from the agenda and that the required Commission action would be to table the item. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the appeal of Height Variation No. 191 was tabled for sixty days unless it could be brought back earlier. CONSENT CALENDAR On request of Mr. McTaggart, the minutes of the meeting of October 13, 1981 were pulled from the Consent Calendar, to be discussed at the end of the meeting. That being the only item, approval of the Consent Calendar was moved to the end of the meeting. Dr. Baer arrived at 7:38 p.m. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 40640 Mr. Thompson said since the staff report CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 68 was written, the applicant revised the Portion of Coastal Subregion 1, plan. He referred to the exhibits on adjacent to Palos Verdes Estates display showing that the applicant was Landowner: M. Berry Trustee now proposing one-story homes along Applicant: Burrell, Ltd. bluff lots 9 thru 17 and two-story homes on lots 3 thru 8, and that the actual ridge heights of those homes would not exceed 16 feet from natural grade;. He said lots 18 thru 23 pro- posed split level homes that would follow the"finished grade. He said the revised plan has met staff's concern and that staff agreed with the proposed structures as now shown. Re staff's concern about the buildability of lot 17, he said the applicant has revised that lot making it bigger and that staff approved of the revision. Staff felt that the grading now complied with the intent of the Code. He said with one-story homes on lots 9 thru 17 the applicant was able to reduce the amount of fill on lots 18 thru 23. Staff felt that the proposed plan for the bluff area under individual owner- ship was acceptable provided the City require certain easements in order to provide lateral public access at the toe of the bluff and also development and scenic easements along the bluff -face. He said the structure on lot #1 was proposed at 16 feet. He said staff did a site inspection and was of the opinion that there was no view obstruction. Staff recommended that the public hearing be closed and the project be approved in concept. He noted that the plan needed a closer look since it was just received today, but felt it appeared acceptable. He referred to a letter received from Mrs. Logan, 3278 Paseo Del Mar, in which she agreed with the location of lots 1 and 2 and felt homes should be located there. He said copies of that letter had been distributed to the Commission this evening. \\ At the direction of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson explained the method of measur- ing the height of structures, per the City's Development Code. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Thompson said lot #9 would be 19 feet above finished grade but 16 feet above natural grade. He said the amount of fill had been reduced quite a bit. He said the way lot #17 was first proposed, the geology line was running right down the center of the lot and that from that line there was also a setback. He said the applicant has widened lot #17 to make it a more buildable lot. He felt the concerns about views had been dealt with in the revised plan. He noted that according to the City's Code there was no significant view impairment. Mr. Hinchliffe said there was an amount of view obstruction caused by the existing vegetation. He said the trees along the Drive clearly obstructed public views. He said the City would probably restrict the height of vegeta- tion as part of this tract approval but had no control over the existing vegetation and its impacts on views. Dr. Brown said he reviewed the original plans of the Berry Estates at Mrs. Shea's home and felt this latest revision was very close to that. Mr. Hughes noted that he had the opportunity to review the CC&Rs which carried an expiration date of 1971 and, therefore, were no longer valid. He said the document did not limit structures to single story, only single fami- ly. He said most of the lots on the original tract map (whish was never processed) were approximately one acre, although some were smaller. Public hearing was opened. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, presented exhibits of several cross sec- tions which correlated with the earlier photographs. He presented a written statement from Mas Ishibashi, a Peninsula farmer, stating that the land pro- posed for agriculture was perfectly appropriate for farming. He said the fill has been reduced and lot #17 was redesigned, adding 20 additional feet of buildable area. RECESS At 8:40 A.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:47 p.m. with the same members present. R. M. Brockett, 30319 Palos Verdes Drive West, was opposed to making the land over the cliff a common lot. He said opening that area up for public access with no controls would permit access into all of the yards along there. He felt the bluff face and top should remain in private ownership: He also felt that the separation between the access area at the drainage ditch and the land adjacent to it should have some protection from those people who will be going to the beach. He was opposed to two tennis courts and improper utilization of the land. Gary Erland, 7430 Via Lorado, said the homes would create a wall along the bluff, taking away the white water view and cutting off better than one-half mile of ocean. He proposed opening the lots even more to open up views from above. He was also concerned about access and felt it was important that it be made and kept available, preferably the trail that he currently uses, which is just to the south of Dr. Croft's property. He said most of the people use that trail. Eleanore Wiedmann, 30032 Palos Verdes Drive West, expressed concern about losing the view of the cliff and the white water from Palos Verdes Drive West and from the homes. She was concerned about the geology and referred to a previous study of the site which caused a previous buyer to plan no structures immediately adjacent to the Drive for fear of the geologic pockets. She felt that lot #1 should be the area considered for common property. She felt the City should take major steps to control the land- scaping and should consider the compatibility difference in lot sizes. 10/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hughes said although the buildable area was small, lots 1 and 2 were the two largest lots in the subdivision, and he believed they were the same as shown on the original tract map for the area. Constance Shea, 3400 Palos Verdes Drive [Nest, said the original map showed one road and no tennis courts. She said there was no expiration date for the CC&Rs. She asked who would be responsible in the event of land slippage. She said the person who farms the site now said he did not feel he could farm the area designated as agriculture in this plan. In response to Mrs. Shea's question on liability, Director Hightower said geology reports were required and that both the developer and the City could be responsible if there was any slippage. In response to Commission questions, Mrs. Shea said there should be some kind of control on the landscaping for both this tract and the existing properties. Mr. Hinchliffe noted the tall trees on her property which may be impacting the views of some of the residences upslope, across the Drive. Dr. David Croft, 3282 Paseo Del Mar, submitted a petition of 65 signatures of persons concerned about view obstruction and the matter of density. He said the project density was not compatible with the existing lots surround- ing the area, that being contiguous property. Mr. McTaggart said it was determined by the City Attorney that the City could not 3ust consider contiguous land to determine compatibility. At the direction of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson explained that the zoning for the site is RS -1 RPD and that the revised development and the previous plan met the Development Code with regard to density requirements and zoning re- quirements, as established by the City Council. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Dr. Croft said the only person that could be impacted by his trees was Mrs. Berry but that her property was very high. Charles Forbes, 7343 Via Lorado,�distributed i fo mation,to.the Commission. He discussed the near ocean view' an"�d sai t e minim m%cceea`n� view obstruction woul e,,b cult�- 0 �Hq, disc Wised he rappo�sed eight of the structures on t e down�ill eAand fe C18 structures shotii be limited to one-story. He was concerned about public views. Mr. Hughes explained that if a view could be obstructed by a 16 -foot struc- ture, then there was no reasonable expectation of a view. Dr. Brown pointed out that the Code defines views and height measurement and that it must be applied consistently throughout the City. Millie Kildiszew, 1736 Chelsea Road, Palos Verdes Estates, owner of the 2.89 acres below lots 1 and 2, questioned the buildable square footage of lots 1 and 2. She said she was denied three lots on her parcel because there was not enough square footage. She did not feel that lots 1 and 2 were large enough. In response to Commission questions concerning the Kildiszew lot split, Mr. Thompson said it was determined that they only had enough density credit to allow for two lots, and that the same criteria was being used for this site. Director Hightower added that the Kildiszews preferred a straight subdivision for their site, and that the City allowed that rather than requiring common open space, etc., as is done with a Residential Planned Development. Peter Kelly, 7378 Via Lorado, felt the Commission should take into considera- tion the topography of this location on the Peninsula. He said the site was 10/27/81 PLANNING COMIISSION MINUTES -3- at the most southern -western point of the Peninsula. He said the whales come closer to the coastline at this point than anywhere else. He was con- cerned with the cliff -top development. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to close the public hearing. Vote on the above motion was was follows: AYES: Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: Baer, Brown, McTaggart ABSENT: None On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. RECESS At 10:13 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:20 p.m. with the same members present. Re visual impact, Mr. Hinchliffe said since there seemed to be concern about the view angle and the ridgeline extensions, that perhaps it made sense to more closely define an envelope for each structure. He wondered if they should narrow the range that any ridgeline may extend seaward on any given lot. Mr. Thompson noted that there was an approximate 100 -foot setback from the pads to the bluff top. He said both in terms of grading and view obstruc- tion, the project as proposed was consistent with the Development Code. He said as the lots go toward the bluff the grading becomes less, creating a more natural appearing slope by feathering it out to the bluff. Mr. Hinchliffe felt that unless there was a way to legally limit the heights below 16 feet, the most recent revisions adequately addressed the concerns of staff. Dr. Baer felt there was still some confusion with the cross sections and he referred to a section of the General Plan on views and vistas and a section of the Development Code on conditional use permit procedures. He did not feel it would be out of line to request additional information addressing the issue. Mr. Thompson said after reviewing the view analysis, staff was of the opinion that there was no view obstruction. Dr. Brown was satisfied with the view analysis. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the views of the people within the project. He said there were views over the structures but felt perhaps there should be views between the structures. He was also concerned about the imposing views of the two-story structures from the ocean side. He felt the view of the coastline was just as important as the view from above the project. He felt there was no reason to line the houses up in a row when there are five acres of agricultural land, two tennis courts, and a park to play with. He felt the width of the lots also affected the views. He did not feel substandard widths should be approved. He thought the process allowed the Commission to be more creative than just permitting the maximum on each lot. Mr. Hughes suggested that if staff worked with the applicant to create a staggered effect or varying setback lines along the bluff for each building pad, that might satisfy the concerns of Dr. Baer and Mr. McTaggart. He asked the applicant if he could provide additional building setbacks in some staggered fashion for the bluff lots. Mr. Burrell said that would be possible. He noted that a previous suggestion of his dealt with varying setbacks from 20 to 32 feet, depending on the height of the structure. 10/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. McTaggart said he would be more comfortable with something that would insure that none of the homes would line up. Mr. Thompson said staff would work with the applicant on this but noted that he did not agree with the concern. He said there would be individual de- signs on each of the lots which would take care of the problem. Director Hightower noted that the geologic line along the bluff already varied and, therefore, would accomplish the same thing. She said Mr. McTaggart's suggestion would require specific setbacks for each lot. Mr. Hughes said he would yield to Mr. McTaggart's suggestion if he felt there was a way for staff to administer it. He said the setback line was staggered so there could not be a straight line of homes. Dr. Brown and Mr. Hinchliffe concurred. Re narrowing the four lots, Mr. Hinchliffe was not sure the City should change the lot lines when the geologic line was questionable. Dr. Brown asked if there could be an amendment to the map later if a process to change the geologic line becomes available. Director Hightower said a revision could be made but she was not sure what it would mean in terms of the County. Mr. Thompson said staff worked on lot #17 for a long time with the City Attorney and the applicant and that what everyone agreed to is what is being proposed tonight. He said any adjustment to the geologic line may create a precedent. It was the consensus of the Commission to approve lots 3 thru 17 and lots 18 thru 23 as presented this evening. In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Director Hightower explained that when the line was adopted it was to include several geologic categories and that the Zoning Code shows that the line is there. She said if the applicant could prove that the land oceanward was stable, the City would give him density credit for it, but that the line would still be there. It was the consensus of the Commission that lots 24 and 25 were acceptable as proposed. Re the bluff face, Mr. Hughes said the applicant had made a strong case for individual ownership rather than common, with the appropriate easement pro- tection for the City. He felt considering the existing homes it was inappro- priate to designate a trail along there. Mr. McTaggart felt for insurance purposes it made more sense to have common ownership. He said it would be less expensive to insure. Dr. Brown agreed it was not an appropriate place for a public trail. It was the consensus of the Commission to reduce the number of tennis courts to one because of concern with noise impacts, and that the tennis court be located as far away from the existing residences as possible. It was also the consensus of the Commission to minimize the grading. Mr. Hinchliffe felt with the existing structures scattered all around the project it seemed silly that they would not be able to share in the facili- ties and would not be subject to the conditions and restrictions that will be placed on this project. Mr. Burrell said the neighboring properties could join the association if they so desire and that he would include in the CC&Rs the option for them to become members. He noted, however, that there was no way to force mem- bership on the existing residents. 10/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to approve the project in concept and ask staff to draw up the appropriate conditions. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: None GRADING APPLICATION NO. 569 Ms. Angus said the request was for a 27119 Shorewood Road four and one-half foot retaining wall Applicant/Landowner: G. Lyon along a portion of the side property line. She said the applicant has a permit for a three and one-half foot retaining wall but felt it was impractical because due to the elevation of his neighbor's yard it could not be placed at the property line and if the wall is located in from the property line the remaining space would be in- sufficient to serve as a parking place at only nine and one-half feet wide. Staff did not agree that it was impractical and felt the parking space would be ample in width and that if the applicant would widen the entrance to his driveway, access to the space would not be too difficult to maneuver. Staff felt that the requested grading was unwarranted and, therefore, should not be approved. Greg Lyon, 27119 Shorewood Road, said the reasons for the requested wall were to improve the appearance of the site and get their car off the street. He said the reason a four and one-half foot wall is necessary is to make it flush with the neighbor's lot. He said his car was six and one-half feet wide and a nine and one-half foot parking width would make it difficult to get in and out of the vehicle. He said his request would not create a visual problem and, in fact, would allow greater visibility than they pre- viously had. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to approve Grading Application No. 569 based on the Commission's determination that a nine and one-half foot wide parking area would not accommodate a handicapped person. Mr. Hughes did not feel a four and one-half foot wall was unreasonable given the grade that was there. Roll call vote on the above motion 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. VARIANCE NO. 71 Ms. Angus said the request was for the 28025 Lobrook encroachment of a garage addition into Applicant/Landowner: Lovell the required front setback. She said the applicant stated the addition was necessary to provide a garage space for their van and that due to the slope of the lot the garage could not be relocated to comply with the front setback standard. She reviewed the re- quired four findings and the response to each by the applicant and by staff, as specified in the staff report. Staff recommended denial based on a failure to make the necessary findings A and B. Public hearing was opened. Nancy Lovell, 28025 Lobrook, said the addition was proposed in an area which would parallel the existing construction. She said the unusal characteris- tics of the site were that it was located at the bottom of a downhill curve 10/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- and that people backing out of the driveway had obstructed vision with the van parked on the street, but that there was nowhere else to park the van because of a fire hydrant. She said getting the van off the street and into a garage would help solve the problem. She said people drive very fast down the street. She said additionally that the slope was very steep and the garage must be placed very close to the front of the lot. Re find- ing B she said staff cited intensifying the encroachment. She questioned how a 5 x 8 foot section of the pians could be eliminated without looking like a hodgepodge. She said it would also create a roofline problem. She noted that the same encroachment exists for many other properties in the area, many with three -car garages. She said they currently have two cars in their garage. She presented photographs of neighboring properties. Fred Lovell, 28025 Lobrook, discussed the plans and said there were tire marks very visible on the street, that people drive very fast. He felt it was a very dangerous situation as it exists. He reviewed the elevations which were on display and presented more photographs. Re the intensity of the encroachment he noted that they were only requesting a 40 square foot encroachment into the setback area. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown asked staff if the curve and safety aspects addressed the required finding for exceptional circumstances. Ms. Angus noted that the variance was necessitated by the size of the addi- tion rather than the lot. She said the addition was more than just a garage and that if the addition was moved back five feet out of the setback area they would run into a height problem in the rear with the additional living space proposed. Mr. Hughes felt that what the applicant was requesting was not inconsistent with what is existing on Lobrook properties. He said a majority of the homes were built with three car garages. He felt finding A was met because the house was in a rather unique location due to the downhill curve and that finding B was met because people have the right to provide adequate off-street parking. He said moving the garage back on the lot, which is very steeply sloping, would not be practical. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to grant Variance No. 71 (Resolution No. 81-55) on the basis that the four required findings could be made as follows: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district because the lot is located in such a position that the applicants do not enjoy adequate off-street parking, be- cause the fire hydrant prohibits safe on -street parking, because the downhill curve represents a dangerous situa- tion, and because the lot is unusually steep sloping which makes it impractical to construct a garage further back on the lot. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district because there are many other garages located within fifteen (15) feet of the front property line. 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 located because the project would not cause view obstruction. 10/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- D. That the granting of such -a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. 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. RECESS At 12:15 a.m, a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 12:19 a.m. with the same members present. VARIANCE NO. 72 Ms. Angus said the applicants were pro - 77 Rockinghorse Road posing an addition to their existing Applicant/Landowner: Nickel garage which would extend to within four feet of the easement line which is interpreted as the front property line. She said the applicants state that the variance is necessary due to the small buildable area on their pad lot and also felt it was necessary to allow them to enjoy the same right to use the land within the setback that many of the neighbors have. She reviewed the required four findings and the response to each of the findings by the applicant and staff, as specified in the staff report. Staff recommended denial based on a failure to make the necessary finding A. In response to Commission questions, Ms. for the additional garage space would be She said there was an indirect driveway side. Public hearing was opened. Angus said an alternative location at the other side of the house. which could branch off to the other William Nickel, 77 Rockinghorse Road, said the project was first submitted in 1980 as a minor exception permit. He said most of the homes in the area were built years ago and that when the request was submitted they included the addresses of several other properties with the same thing. He said they received art jury approval and read a letter dated October 26, 1981 stating that the approval was granted because: 1) there was no view obstruction; 2) there was no other logical place for the garage; 3) the addition would blend in nicely with the area; 4) the cars parked in front of the garage would not extend into the street; and 5) none of the neighbors voiced any objections. He said he had the support of the neighbors at 73, 74, 76, 79, and 85 Rockinghorse Road. He said the usable lot area was relatively small and that the cesspool was in the northwest corner of the lot, which further limited the buildable area. Carl Vanderbeek, 76 Rockinghorse Road, said he lived directly across the street and was very probably the only neighbor who would be able to see the addition from within the home. He said the lot was unusual because the buildable area was quite small. He did not feel there was any other reason- able location on the site for the garage and did not feel it was reasonable to put it on the other side of the house. He said the Homeowners Association was in support of the variance. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded No. 72 (Resolution No. 81-56) based on of the required findings, as follows: by Mr. Hinchliffe, to approve Variance the Commission's ability to make all 10/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district because there is not a reasonable buildable area for the additional garage space on the lot. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district because his- torically property owners abutting private roads have enjoyed the right to use the area within the setback. C. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improve- ments in the area in which the property is located because the addition would be sunk into an existing slope and would, therefore, not significantly impact traffic safety or visi- bility. D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. 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. CONSENT CALENDAR on motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby ap- proving the minutes of the meeting of October 13, 1981 with the following amendment to page 5, paragraph 5: change to read "Mr. McTaggart did not feel that the project presented a significant view obstruction, but felt that all of the options had not been explored." STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower said the Council has scheduled a meeting with the Com- mission on November 9 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss possible revisions to the Height Variation section of the Code. She said there would be an agenda, and that the Council also decided that rather than meeting on the fifth Tuesday of December with the Commission, all other items for discussion should be placed on the agenda of November 9. COMMISSION REPORTS "MIN L4101 100 hN, 10 1 pi 0 M Dr. Brown requested that staff reports include phone numbers of persons in- volved with individual agenda items. At 12:49 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Monday, November 9, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 10/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9-