Loading...
PC MINS 198201120 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 12, 1982 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 Associate Planner Alice Bergquist Angus and Assistant Planner Joe Gamble. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of December 8, 1981, and the minutes of December 22, 1981, as presented. HEIGHT VARIATION 191 APPEAL Ms. Angus said the Commission re - 30014 Via Victoria quested that staff prepare a resolu- Appellant/Landowner: Ezell tion approving this project for con- sideration by the Commission at this _ meeting. She noted that said resolu- tion was received by the Commission in their agenda packets. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to approve Resolu- tion No. 82-1, thereby granting the appeal of Height Variation No. 191. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Baer Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. Dr. Baer arrived at 7:38 p.m. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 576 Mr. Gamble said the requested grading, Lot 4, Tract 32574 (Seacliff) houseprint, and driveway differed from Applicant: John Vilicich the approved plan for the lot and that Landowner: Peter M. Tsai less grading was now required for the proposal. He said the applicant felt this plan would be more consistent with the other homes in the tract. He said should the applicant request the placement of a retaining wall/fence combination around the tennis court, application for a minor exception permit would be necessary and that the applicant has been so advised. Staff recommended approval since the project complies with all of the criteria of the Code. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Gamble said the daylight line showed that everything toward the rear of the property within the tennis court peri- meter would be filled. He said the finished floor elevation of the tennis court was shown on the site plan, that the height was approximately three (3) feet on the northern side and would not exceed three and one-half '(3-1/2) feet on the southern side. Mr. McTaggart felt that since the tennis court is the reason for grading, the Commission should have complete plans for the court. He asked about the notation on the plans re an underground conduit to the tennis court and if it was intended for lighting the court. John Vil.icich, designer of the plans, said the only critical_ point of the project is for the fence, that otherwise the project completely complies with the Code. He said he was told about the need for a minor exception permit because of the fence height and would submit the necessary application. He said the conduit in question had nothing to do with the tennis court. He said he could provide more detailed drawings of the court. John Murphy, 3577 Heroic Drive, representing the Palos Verdes South Home- owners Association, said the concerns raised at last night's board meeting related primarily to aesthetics, although there was also some concern re the stability of the site. He said they were concerned about the amount of earth that would be moved and the change to the hillside if there is excessive grading as has occurred on some of the other lots in the area. He felt there should be a minimum amount of redistribution of earth. Mr. McTaggart was concerned that the Commission was being asked to rule on a grading application without a full rendering of what is proposed to be placed on the excavation. He said he would like to see more detailed drawings of what the full tennis court will look like and would like to know if there was any intention to light the court since there was a note on the drawing citing a conduit to the tennis court. He said he would like to know what the fencing on top of the retaining wall would look like. Dr. Brown requested that staff look at any possible view impairment and other appropriate conditions which may be placed on the project. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the item should be tabled until the applicant submits the additional information which should include one or two cross sections through the tennis court, showing the retaining walls and showing what the project will look like coming down Palos Verdes Drive South. He felt there would be some effect on view because of its location. Mr. Hughes said it was the consensus of the Commission to table this item for additional information including specific•details of the tennis court, sections through it showing how much overhang there would be, what the retaining wall would look like with the fence on top, and a rendering showing what the project would look like coming•along the Drive from either direction. He suggested that the applicant submit the minor exception permit application. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the item was tabled until the applicant submits the appropriate information as requested this evening by the Commission. VARIANCE NO. 75 Mr. Gamble said the request was for 31250 Palos Verdes Drive West enclosure of an existing dining deck Applicant/Landowner: Golden Cove with wood and glass walls at the Development Company Admirable Risty Restaurant. He said the existing building encroaches twenty- four (24) feet into the required thirty (30) foot front setback and that the proposed walls would be aligned with the existing walls of the lounge area. He referred to the required findings and staff's responses to them, as stated in the staff report. Staff recom- mended approval of the variance and adoption of the draft resolution which was distributed to the Commission this evening. Public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart said his son was an employee of the restaurant and that they have not discussed this application. He asked about the drain pipe which is located just outside the window close to the dining area. 1/12/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- The applicant indicated they could handle the matter of the pipe. Dr. Brown proposed a motion seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe,,, to adopt resolu- tion No. 82-2, therby approving Variance No. 75 based on the findings as presented by staff. 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 NO. 68(APPEAL) Ms. Angus said the City Council heard Tentative Tract No._ 40640 the appeal on December 7 and moved to Applicant: Burrellf Ltd. further condition fencing for the bluff lots. She said the Council discussed limiting lot coverage by increasing the required sideyard setbacks. She explained that the intent of the limit on lot coverage and the forty-two (4.2) inch limit on fencing was to provide view corridors from Marguerite Drive between the future bluff homes. She said the Council remanded the issue of lot coverage back to the Commission for consideration, and staff felt the issue of limiting the height of fencing to forty-two (42) inches in the side setback should be considered by the Commission in conjunction with lot coverage., She reviewed the considerations for the project. Staff recommended that the conditional use permit be re- vised to require sideyard setbacks of fifteen (15) feet per side and to pro- hibit walls above forty-two (42) inches in the sideyard setbacks and that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the revised condi- tional use permit. Public hearing was opened. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, referred to his drawings on display and presented photographs:.- He felt staff was correct in restricting the land- scaping and adding additional controls over it. He felt what was between the homes in terms of landscaping and fencing was more important than the distance between them. He did not agree with increasing the setbacks and said he preferred variability as it allowed for flexibility and originality He said the setback increase exceeded the requirements of the Code in any - zone. He said lots 3 thru 8 could build higher and, therefore, had options available that other lots did not. He said he would go along with it in areas where it is really needed. Dr. Baer noted that the applicant could eliminate one"lot -and spread the project out. He said the real interest was with the angular view. He asked if there were any lots where more space between the homes would provide a greater view of the ocean and where there would be more value with a wider separation. Mr. Hughes said staff recommended thirty (30) foot setbacks, the applicant was opposed to that, and Dr. Baer was asking which of the lots would be the best ones for thirty (30) foot view corridors. Mr. Burrell said between lots 13 and 14, lots 15 and 16, and lots 24 and 25. RECESS - At 8:53 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with the same members present. Dorothy Corliss, 330'0 Paseo Del Mar_, said she will view what goes on lots. 1 and 2. She was concerned that'two families would.-b.e-taking away the view from future generations. She said many people use the area for jogging and many stop there to take picture's. She said when the point is to preserve 1/12/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- the coastline, she could not understand destroying the view for all of the people who enjoy it. She said teachers have brought their classes there to watch whales., She felt those two lots should be located somewhere else on the site. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing-was-clbsed. Dr. Brown concurred with staff's recommendation re walls and fences. He said he was not opposed to the applicant's suggestion for lots 2 thru 9, with his suggestion for a twenty (20) foot setback on lot 2. He said thirty (30) foot separations could be achieved by requiring fifteen (15) foot set- backs between specific lots with ten (10) foot setbacks on the other side. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with Dr. Brown relative to separations between the homes. He sai-&because of the sensitivity of the views the Commission had conditioned this project on the landscaping plan coming back ­to the Commission for approval. Dr. Baer felt if they were going to optimize the view corridors it would be beneficial to look at it more carefully. He felt the applicant should work on it and come back with a presentation which could be reviewed and discussed at the next meeting. Mr. McTaggart said he would like to see the setbacks vary or at least have the ability to vary. Re the forty-two (42) inch wall height, he felt if the top portion was wrought iron, it would still provide security. Mr. Hughes said his interpretation of the Council directive was that there was not only concern for view corridors between homes but also about lot coverage. He felt perhaps they should look at an increase in sideyard setbacks as a function of the height of the structure; i.e., for every foot above sixteen (16) feet (measured from the ridgeline to the foundation), the setback would increase by one (1) foot. He said that would give flexi- bility and may encourage the applicant to keep the structures low. Mr. McTaggart said he was concerned about a wall of homes from the ocean side and felt they might be forcing the homes closer towards the bluffs by nar- rowing the structures. Mr. Hinchliffe said re lots 3 thru 17, the Commission had discussed how far back from the road they should be, how wide they should be, etc. He said lot coverage controls always tend to make a structure taller. He supported Mr. Hughes suggestion. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to request from the applicant and staff a formula along the lines that Mr. Hughes was suggesting concerning increasing setbacks by structure height on lots 3 thru 17, and for more analysis for Commission review of the compromise -agreement -which was the applicant's suggestion on lots 2 thru 9 and more separation between lots 13 and 14, lots 15 and 16, and lots 24 and 25. Dr. Baer moved to amend the above motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, that the applicant also address the staggered setback with view from the ocean and include the front and rear yard setbacks in the motion. Mr. Hughes said since the Council asked the Commission to address lot coverage, front and rear yard setbacks for lots 3 thru 17 should be looked at as well as side setbacks. The Commission unanimously approved the amendment to the motion, and unanimously approved the motion. Dr. Brown felt they should make sure there is a larger side setback on the southerly side of lot 2 (adjacent to lot 1) per the applicant's suggestion. 1/12/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. McTaggart noted a typographical error on condition 3-C. He said there were specific areas of concern r6 landscaping that did not get into the conditions. He .g.,eStion,e,d,the: condition concerning written-approvdl-from the Director of Planning. He said he would like_to­recommend to 'the Council other changes to the conditional use permit, specifically that any changes to the landscaping plan be approved by the Commission. Dr. Brown suggested that staff make conditions 3.E. and 12 more consistent with what the Commission suggested. Mr. Hughes asked staff to prep -are some proposed wording for those conditions. He noted that this item would be considered again when the applicant brings back the appropriate information. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown requested that features from past discussions on the Levitt project be included in the staff report for the meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 21, 1982. Dr. Brown requested that the staff reports include phone numbers for the applicants and a map. ADJOURNMENT At 9:50 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Thursday, January 21, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. 1/12/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -5-