Loading...
PC MINS 198201267 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 26, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Baer, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: Hinchliffe Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planners Sandra Massa Lavitt and Alice Bergquist Angus, and Assistant Planner Jon Shepherd. CONSENT CALENDAR Dr. Brown proposed amending the minutes of January 12, 1982, as fol- lows: page 2, paragraph 3, line 2, should read "...at last night's Palos Verdes South Homeowners Association board meeting..." On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Dr. Baer, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving: A) the minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1982, as amended above; B) the minutes of the meeting of January 21, 1982; and C) a one-year time extension of condition no. 2 of Conditional Use Permit No. 29 (Tract No. 33093). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 68 (APPEAL) Ms. Angus said at the last meeting Tentative Tract No. 40640 the Commission directed staff to Applicant: Burrell, Ltd. evaluate the concept of increasing the setbacks on lots 3-9 and specify- ing where two 15 -foot side setbacks should adjoin on lots 10-17 versus the concept of a formula to relate building height to lot coverage. Staff felt that a formula was the better choice because it would provide an incentive for the future owners of lots 3-9 not to build above 16 feet. Staff did not feel the trade-off of gain- ing a 5 -foot wide corridor for lot 21 or 22 (which already have a view over the future bluff homes) was worth reducing the buildable area of lot 14 disproportionately. She said the Commission directed staff to increase the scope of review of lot coverage to include front and rear setbacks. Staff recommended that the front setback remain a constant 20 feet. She said the developer has proposed a condition to be incorporated in the CC&Rs that would disallow flat roofs and, in light of that condition, staff did not believe it was necessary to increase the rear setback. Staff recommended as a formula to relate building height and szdeyard setbacks for lots 3-9 that for each additional foot of height above 16 feet the sideyard setback be increased by 6 inches. Staff recommended conditioning lot 2 and proposed changing the wording of condition 3.C. in response to the Commission's con- cern about landscaping control. Staff recommended the revisions as pre- sented this evening and that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit as revised. Mr. McTaggart recommended that the Council adopt a condition prohibiting flat roofs and not just rely on the CC&Rs. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, agreed to adding Mr. McTaggart's sugges- tion to the conditions. He said his suggestion had been that no more than 20 percent of the roof area be flat. In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Burrell said the condition could begin with the overall con- cept which .is to prohibit flat roofs and then further refine it by stating that nothing less than a 2 in 12 pitch at any point would be permitted, with minor provisions for specific instances (such as a patio roof) which may allow less than that. Dr. Baer felt the Commission was still short information and asked if the applicant supplied each of the Commission members with a copy of the tract map showing setbacks, buildable area, view corridors, and ridge heights on all dwellings. Mr. Burrell said the map on display showed ridge heights and setbacks and that view corridors could be determined by looking at that map. He said the map was the same as was presented to the Commission previously and as was presented to the City Council, that it had not changed. He delineated the view corridors and explained that the views were primarily over the structures rather than through them. Mr. Hughes said normally a sales office has renderings showing what the development will look like. He noted that all of the drawings for this project show huge trees and hoped the sales office would not present those drawings since conditions were imposed on this development prohibiting that kind of landscaping. Dr. Brown was satisfied with the staff recommendations and said they only needed to work out wording for the condition regulating flat roofs. Mr. McTaggart was concerned with the wording of condition 10 and suggested changing to say "Stub fencing must be constructed to a point at the bluff" instead. He suggested adding a condition that "No portion of any roof sea- ward of the centerline of the building footprint on lots 2-17 shall be higher than a point drawn on a line declining on a slope of 2 in 12 from the centerline unless it is a gable type roof." Mr. Burrell said that condition would eliminate any flexibility and sug- gested instead a condition prohibiting flat roofs and defining a flat roof as 2 in 12. Ms. Angus suggested adding to Mr. Burrell's suggestion "If the ridge runs parallel to the bluff the ridge shall be set back 20 feet." Mr. Hughes felt staff's suggestion that the highest point of the ridge line be 20 feet back from the setback line and that a flat roof be defined as anything less than 2 in 12 was good because it would push the ridge back and was uncomplicated. Mr. McTaggart said the condition must include "unless the ridgeline is perpendicular to the bluff." It was the consensus of the Commission to have that as a condition and Mr. Hughes directed staff to write a condition to that effect. Dr. Baer displayed a rendering depicting his concerns. He felt the project was imposing and that it represented a broader problem which had not been adequately addressed by the applicant or staff. Mr. Hughes felt the Commission had adequately dealt with the development and he was comfortable that the development met the guidelines of the Code. He said the Commission had proposed setbacks above and beyond what is normally placed on projects. He felt the Commission had taken adequate measures for preventing view obstruction. He asked about suggested wording for condition 10. Ms. Angus said the condition could be changed to say "Stub fencing must be constructed on lots 3 and 17 to provide safety." Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to recommend to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 68 with the changes sug- gested by staff, as modified this evening. 1/26/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Roll call vote was as follows: RECESS AYES: Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: Baer ABSENT: Hinchliffe At 8:55 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with the same members present. VARIANCE NO. 76 Mr. Shepherd said the request was for 31335 Marne Drive construction of a tennis court 22 feet Applicant/Landowner: Kim above grade and cantilevered over a slope of approximately 65 percent. He said the court was proposed to be constructed in the rear yard and enclosed with a 6 -foot high fence. He said the overall height of the court and fence exceeds the maximum height limitation by 10 feet and that since the slope is approximately 65 percent it was considered Open Space Hazard. Staff recommended denial of the variance because none of the four necessary findings could be made. Public hearing was opened. See Myun Kim, 31335 Marne Drive, said he would withdraw his application if any of his neighbors would lose their view. He said he had 40 pine trees and that they would shield much of the view of the court. He said if there was an encroachment on the west side of the property that he could lessen the size of the court. Herb Soloway, 31415 Marne Drive, said he would have a definite view impair- ment which would cause a substantial reduction of worth to his property. He said he looked directly down over the rear of the site where the project is proposed and that the court would be visible from his property. Tom Alley, Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowners Association, 6304 Sattes Drive, said at this time the Association could not support the project because it had not been reviewed in detail. He said the Association was concerned with view impairment and maintenance of the required setbacks per the CC&Rs and, therefore, recommended denial of the project. He said he was president of the Association's architectural committee and that the applicant has been advised of the requirement to submit plans to the committee. Dan Torrance, 31434 Marne Drive, felt the project would be an eyesore and he objected to such a large area being used for play because it would be noisy, etc. He was also concerned about lights. Mr. Hughes explained that lights were not being requested and would require a conditional use permit. Captain F. B. Risser, 31325 Marne Drive, said his home was built to take advantage of the view. He was concerned about the location of the lot lines as a recent survey moved the property line 3 feet onto what the original bench mark showed as his lot. He said the project was proposed to be situ- ated over a sewer easement. He said his bedroom and deck look over the proposed court which he felt would represent an eyesore. He added that the existing trees provide him with privacy. Peter Elloway, 21407 Marne Drive, said the project would obstruct the views of 5 or 6 houses. He said there would be view obstruction because of the fence and felt the photographs were deceptive because the trees were actually down below. Mr. Hughes declared the public hearing closed. 1/26/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. McTaggart noted to staff that a vicinity map on display would have been helpful. He said the Open Space Hazard designation was instituted in the City to provide natural -appearing slopes and prevent unwise construction. While he felt people had the right to have recreation on their property, the question was the appropriateness of building on a 65 -percent slope. On that basis, he felt the project was inappropriate. He said staff did not bring up the subject of views or provide elevations through the proposed court, and hedid not feel view obstruction was a consideration in this particular case. Dr. Baer felt the decision should be based on the Open Space Hazard issue and that if view was to be a consideration, staff would have to prepare a view analysis. Mr. Hughes said because the slope was 65 percent, the applicant could not build on it without a variance and that in order to grant this variance the Commission must make the required findings. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 82-3, thereby denying Variance No. 76, based on the Commission's in- ability to make the required findings, per the findings listed in the staff report. Roll call vote was as 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. STAFF REPORTS Ms. Lavitt reviewed the proposed Code Proposed Amendments to the amendments for: mobile homes, permits Development Code for geological investigation, commer- cial condominiums and conversions, and changes to provide clarification in the sections of the Code concerning building height and recreational fencing. Mr. Hughes was not sure the City should allow commercial condominiums and asked if the City could dust prohibit them. Director Hightower said if the City could legally prohibit them that was an alternative, but if not it was important to adopt standards and criteria to handle any future requests. Ms. Lavitt said she would check on the options and report back to the Com- mission. Re fencing, Mr. Hughes and Mr. McTaggart were concerned about the 13-1/2 foot combination height. Mr. Hughes had no -problems with the downslope side but felt that on the upslope side it would only be to gain the addi- tional height. Director Hightower said February 23 was a possible date for scheduling public hearing on the Code amendments. She said the Commission would also have a report to review on more stringent regulations for fire retardent roofing. she noted that public hearing on the amendments to the Local Coastal Program would be coming up at the same time. Mr. Hughes suggested that the City arrange for the Fire Chief to come and speak to the Commission re the roofing. Director Hightower said that might be appropriate when the item comes up as a Code amendment. 1/26/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- 0 - - Levitt Project Ms. Lavitt said the Levitt project was scheduled for the next regular meeting. Director Hightower explained that there was a lack of quorum on the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission for the January 21 meeting. She said they have since decided that this Commission should have a meeting and give its concerns to Rolling Hills Estates and then their Commission would have a meeting and come up with its concerns, with perhaps another joint meeting following, if necessary. Commissioners' Institute members of the Commission to attend. ADJOURNMENT Re the Commissioners' Institute, Director Hightower said the Depart- ment was budgeted to allow three At 10:22 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, February 9, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. 1/26/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-