Loading...
PC MINS 19811124� Dvv Co3� M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting November 24, 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 Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt the Consent Calendar, as presented. Dr. Baer requested that items B and C be pulled from the Consent Calendar. He suggested the following changes to the minutes of November 10, 1981: page 1, paragraph 4, should read "Dr. Baer noted that he received a copy of a communication from the applicant."; page 1, paragraphs 5 and 7, change "site" to "sight"; and page 2, paragraph 7, should read "Dr. Baer discussed his geology concern and the view analysis and sketches which he prepared that had not previously been available to the Commission." He requested information on the request for the time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 12431. Director Hightower briefly reviewed the project and explained the Code specifications regarding time limits. She said time extensions were normally granted unless there were extenuating circumstances that would warrent denial. Dr. Brown noted that running out of time was a common problem with the pro- cessing of tentative maps because of various delays, often at the County level. Mr. Hinchliffe and Dr. Brown amended the above motion to reflect the changes made on pages 1 and 2 of the minutes and the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving: A) minutes of the meeting of November 9, 1981; B) minutes of the meeting of November 10, 1981, as amended; and C) a one- year time extension for Tentative Parcel 'Map No. 12431. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 191 APPEAL Ms. Lavitt said the request was to con - 30014 Via Victoria struct an addition over an existina Appellant/Landowner: Ezell attached garage. She said one letter of concern was received but that a field inspection revealed no potential view obstruction from that location. She said, however, that a site investi- gation conducted from 30019 Via Rivera indicated that the construction would impose significant view obstruction, and based on that determination the project was denied by staff. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal and sustain staff's decision. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said the photograph from 30019 Via Rivera was taken at the rear of the house on the patio, outside of the setback areas. She said the owner of the house did not reside there and that she had not communicated with him. She did not feel that the home had been constructed to be situated on the lot in such a way as to take advantage of a principal view. Gene Ezell, 30014 Via Victoria, presented additional photographs taken from various locations. He said they considered alternatives but that in order to achieve the same square footage, a one-story addition would leave no rear yard, that it would extend to the toe of the hill. He said an addition such as that would leave no rear yard, would be difficult to obtain a workable floor plan, and would be detrimental to the house. He showed a plot plan and said none of the property owners objected to the addition, that Mrs. Reinhardt misunderstood the request and was no longer concerned. He said the remodeling in progress now was a first floor extension of the kitchen. In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Doug Shanklin, 706 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, drew elevations on the board showing the rear of the house. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Ms. Lavitt said she was stand- ing about three feet behind the sliding glass door in the rear of the prop- erty at 30019 Via Rivera when she took the picture, and that it was taken from a height of five feet. Dr. Baer said the view from the side window in the living room was the same. Mr. Hughes did not feel that the house at 30019 Via Rivers was built with the intent to take a view between the homes. He said the homes that would be built on the vacant lots across the street from the applicant would take the majority of the existing view. He said it was not clear to him that it was a view home and that there was a reasonable expectation of a view in that direction. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred. Dr. Brown was troubled with calling it a significant view impairment and with how reasonable it was to eliminate the rear yard with a one-story addition. He asked about changing the roof design as mentioned by staff. Ms. Lavitt said changing the roof pitch or design was a possibility but would not alter the situation significantly. Mr. McTaggart did not feel the view obstruction was as severe as was indi- cated. He had difficulty saying there was a significant view obstruction. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion to grant the appeal of Height Variation No. 191, thereby approving the project based on the fact that the proposed addition would not represent a significant view obstruction, given the fact that 16 -foot structures built on the vacant lots on Via Victoria would con- siderably alter the situation and that the alternative of building the addition in the rear of the lot appeared to be questionable. As there was no second to that motion, Mr. Hinchliffe changed the motion to grant conceptual approval of the project. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about the design of the roof, and Dr. Baer said the Commission could condition the approval on the new roof matching the existing roof. Mr. Ezell said the roof style would be similar to the existing roof, that they would be bringing the existing roof forward with the pitch that is there. Mr. McTaggart felt there should be adequate drawings available showing exactly what is proposed. Mr. Hinchliffe suqgested tabling the matter until the appropriate blueprints are submitted for review. He withdrew his previous motion. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the matter was tabled until the next meeting or until the applicant provided staff with adequate plans showing roof design, sight lines across the street, etc. 11/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hughes explained that the matter was continued and that there was con- sensus for approval of the item if the roof concept could be satisfactorily dealt with. He directed staff to bring back a resolution at the meeting at which the Commission reviews the plans. He advised the applicant to submit the plans to staff as soon as possible. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 570 Coral Ridge Road, Parcel "A" Landowner: Ray Quigley Applicant: South Bay Eng. Architect: Rob Quigley not excessive and was in compliance approval. Ms. Lavitt said the request was for grading for a new residence on slopes exceeding 35 percent. She said very little grading was proposed and that all of it was to obtain access, i.e. for the driveway and garage. Staff felt that the proposed grading was with the -Coder Staff recommended Rob Quigley, architect, said the roof elevation of the proposed structure was 195 and was approximately the same height as the slope in the back. He said they would have to construct fencing to keep children from climbing onto the roof. He said they could cut the hill back or raise the parapet on that side of the roof. He explained that the steep slope created prob- lems with meeting the height requirements. He said part of the driveway was cantilevered and that there was no retaining wall. He discussed the driveway slope, saying that it was flat in most areas. He said the grad- ing was only for the garage and driveway, that there was virtually no grading for the house itself. Re the problem of children gaining access to the roof, Director Hightower said there were several solutions which could be done within the Code. She said they could cut out the hill and put in a retaining wall or they could put up a six-foot fence. She noted that because of the steepness of the slope, the required setback was only ten feet. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to grant Grading Application No. 570 with the understanding that the roof access problem would be solved. 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. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14537 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for 0 Rockinghorse Road the division of a one -acre lot into Landowner: T. & E. Bruinsma two parcels. She described the project Applicant: J. Cahn location, the zoning, and the surround- ing uses. She said proposed parcel 2 has an existing stable and that the conditions of approval could include that prior to development of the lot the stable be removed if it cannot be incorporated as an accessory structure in the future development of a home. Staff recommended tentative approval of the map pending review by the County Geology section. She said she dis- cussed the map with the County Geologist and that he indicated approval and said a letter was forthcoming. She said staff could prepare the appropriate resolution and conditions for approval by the Commission once that letter is received. Public hearing was opened. 11/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Joseph Cahn, registered civil engineer, 808 4th Street #301, Santa Monica, answered questions of the Commission. He said there were no sewers on the site, but a septic tank instead. He did not know its location or that of the leech field. Mr. Hughes was concerned that the septic tank and leech field for parcel 1 be fully contained within the boundaries of that parcel. Tim Bruinsmat 216 31st Street, Hermosa Beach, speaking on behalf of his parents, asked if approval could be granted subject to the matter of the septic tank being resolved. He agreed with the staff recommendations noted in the staff report. Julius Korta, 5 Rockinghorse Road, said he had no objection to the lot split. He said the majority of the lots in the area were approximately one-half acre in size. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission granted conceptual approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 14537 subject to County appfoval of the-ge6logy, and instructed staff to prepare a resolution and the appropriate conditions, including a condition requiring that before final map approval the septic tank and leech field for parcel 1 be located and be contained entirely on parcel 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14538 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for a 1 Rockinghorse Road two -lot subdivision. She described Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. Owen the site location, the zoning, and the Applicant: J. Cahn surroundinq uses. She discussed the access to parcel 2 and said the appli- cant would have to adjust the property line along the pole access to indicate 15 feet as required by the Fire De- partment. Staff recommended tentative approval of the map and would prepare the appropriate resolution and conditions for Commission review after the response from the County Geology section is received. She said staff re- ceived a verbal approval from the County and that a letter is forthcoming. Public hearing was opened. Richard Owen, 1 Rockinghorse Road, showed on the map the location of the septic tank. Julius Korta, 5 Rockinghorse Road, had no objection to the lot split. He showed the location of his lot on the map. In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Ms. Lavitt said the Fire Depart- ment reviewed the map and that because the pole was considered a driveway rather than a road, they only require a width of 15 feet. Mr. McTaggart was concerned that the turning radius was inadequate. Joseph Cahn illustrated on the map how the turning radius could be improved with either an easement or altering the lot lines. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to conceptually approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 14538 subject to appropriate revision of the access to parcel 2 and subject to the approval of the geology information. Staff was instructed to prepare the appropriate resolution and conditions and to review the location of the septic tank and leech field. 11/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, PIcTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower reported that Richard Thomoson was leaving the City and had accepted the position of Architect Planner with the City of Inglewood. She said December 2 would be his last day. She said Alice Bergquist Angus has been promoted to the position of Associate Planner. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Baer said he had some concerns about the Burrell subdivision which he wished to convey to the Council. Mr. Hughes requested that Dr. Baer make it very clear that those concerns reflected his own personal opinion and not the opinion of the Commission. He said in the opinion of the ma3ority of the Commission, all of the con- cerns had been adequately addressed. Director Hightower noted that the Council would not be meeting on December 1 due to the lack of a quorum and instead would meet on December 7. 4 ADJOURNMENT At 10:15 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to ad3ourn to Tuesday, December 8, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 11/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-