Loading...
PC MINS 19820309M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 9, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 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 Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Joseph Gamble. CONSENT CALENDAR on motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Dr. Baer, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of February 23, 1982, as presented. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 576 Mr. Gamble said this item was last Lot 4, Tract 32574 (Seacliff) heard by the Commission on January 12, Applicant: John Vilicich and that the requested grading, house - Landowner: Peter M. Tsai print, and driveway differed from the approved plan for the lot. He said the applicant was requesting approval of a house, driveway, and tennis court. He said at the last meeting the Commission expressed concerns regarding the potential effect on view due to the tennis court's location and requested a rendering showing what the project would look like coming along the Drive from either direction. He said while analyzing the potential impact of this project, staff took into account the visual aspects of the General Plan. Due to the sensitive nature of this vehicular view corridor, it was staff's opinion that the massiveness of the proposed house and tennis court was inconsistent with the General Plan. Given the constraints of the lot staff felt the proposal was in- appropriate and recommended denial. In addition staff recommended that the Commission require that the applicant submit a house design which is more compatible with the sloping character of the lot. In response to questions by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Gamble said the concept has not changed significantly. He said the conduit had been removed and the cross section provided tonight was more extensive. He referred to the photo display and perspective which the applicant submitted. John Vilicich, 1622 South Gaffey Street, San Pedro, discussed the other homes in the tract and said the intent of this home was no different than those homes already proposed and approved by the Planning Department. He presented cross sections and photographs and discussed the tremendous amount of noise generated from the Drive. He said they were proposing less grading than what was originally approved. He said they would reduce the retaining wall and reduce the fence height from ten feet to eight feet. He said the shrubbery needed to mitigate the noise impact would also hide the tennis court and fence. He felt the house was in­compliance_w__i�El-� the.hbmes permitted on either side of the lot. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Gamble said the difference with the footprint of this lot from the approved plan differed much more than the lots on either side. He said due to the location of the tennis court there were more restrictions on this residence. Dr. Baer said the tennis court was 4*p-twenty feetAfrom the road and would be difficult to see. He felt there would be a minimal impact on view. Dr. Baer proposed a motion to accept and approve Grading Application No. 576.--Themotion died for lack of a second. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny Grading Application No. 576 on the basis of staff's analysis, that the massiveness of the proposed house and tennis court was inconsistent with the General Plan due to the sensitive nature of this vehicular view corridor and given the constraints of the lot ---its proximity to Palos Verdes Drive South and its slope. Mr. McTaggart felt the proposed tennis court location was inappropriate, i.6 &­o� o_,cz, ;/,- Cc�, Mr. Hinchliffe agreed that the court, as situated on the property, is ob- jectionable. Dr. Brown concurred. Dr. Baer said the photographs presented by the applicant of tennis courts on other similar sites indicate that what could be seen is primarily shrubbery. He felt this was a good location for a tennis court because of the road. Mr. Hughes concurred that this was one of the scenic drives in the City and that the tennis court would be a very imposing view impairment. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: Baer ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. If the project is not appealed, he suggested that the applicant work with staff based on the Commission's input tonight and either scale down the court or remove it. He said the Commission did not want to see the tennis court backing up to the Drive and would like to see as low a profile a house as is consistent with the Development Code. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 232 APPEAL Mr. Gamble reviewed the zoning and lot 3338 Corinna Drive size and said the applicant proposed Applicant/Landowner: Cron an addition, 24 feet in height at the Appellants: Johnson, et al highest point of the structure. He said the appellants' view is from the back of the house and that the pro- posed addition could be viewed from the appellants' rear yard. He said the appeal was based primarily on alteration to the character of the neighbor- hood which is not a Code criterion. Following analysis of the application and a field study, staff determined that there would be no significant view obstruction caused by the addition. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal based on the definition of view per the Code and that all of the findings could be met. He referred to the display. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. Gamble said it was explained to the appellants that compatibility was not part of the Code criteria as it exists today. Beatrice Cron, 3338 Corinna Drive, said -they were proposing a second story to their existing home to enlarge the house. She said property values do not decrease when improvements are made. She said they hoped to make the addition attractive and would not be obstructing anyone's view. In response to Commission questions, Mrs. Cron said there was not enough room for a single story addition. She said the home was 21 years old. She said she had not been advised by opposing residents that she was in violation of any deed restrictions, that no one has discussed any aspects of the project with her. 3/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- At Mr. McTaggart's request, Mr. Gamble put on display a rendering of the proposed structure. John Melanson, 3348 Corinna Drive, next door on the north side of the subject property, was opposed to the proposed project. He expressed con- cerns about loss of privacy, reduction of property values, and loss of morning sun. Anthony Mlikotin, 3414 Deluna Drive, felt the City should be consistent with view protection whether it is relating to structures or trees. He said a lot of people have lost views due to trees. Marion W. Bell, 3332 Corinna Drive, next door to the east of the applicant, presented photographs to the Commission and spoke in opposition to the project. He expressed concerns about his loss of view of the hilltops of Rolling Hills, the change to the character of the neighborhood, the possi- bility of the structure becoming a multiple family dwelling, and the de- crease in surrounding property values. He said he was told that there were height restrictions in the area but did not have anything in writing. Mr. Hughes said per current law the parents on the first floor and the daughter and husband on the second floor would still constitute a family. He explained that CC&Rs are private agreements and could not be enforced by the City, but must instead be enforced by the residents through the courts. He explained the City's Code and said the Commission must first establish that there is a view and second that the obstruction is signifi- cant. In response to questions by Dr. Brown, Mr. Bell said the primary view for all of the properties there is the ocean, but that the hills behind also represent an important view which would be drastically altered by this project. Re copies of the CC&Rs, Mr. Hinchliffe said if they were filed they would be available in the County Recorder's office and would have been attached to the deeds. Mr. Hughes added that they should also be attached to the title insurance policy. Mr. Hinchliffe said the reason he was asking about CC&Rs is because point #3 of the petition referred to rights of the homeowners and he was trying to establish what rights we -re -meant by that. Barbara Kennard, 3402 Deluna Drive, said looking down from her back yard the subject house appeared so little nestled at the bottom of the big trees. She said no view was being blocked by the proposed addition. Re privacy, she said in tracts there are always some people that have views into other people's back yards. She said she had experience in real estate and that the project would not decrease the value of any of the homes and would, in fact, enhance the neighborhood. Jerry Smith, 30846 Casilina Drive, said he was granted a height variation on his house and spoke in support of this request. He said most of the homes in this neighborhood were built 18 to 20 years ago in different times. He felt people should be able to expand their homes to meet their needs as long as they did not interfere with anyone's view and did it in good taste. Edward Johnson, 3320 Deluna Drive, immediately north of the proposed structure, said this structure was being built on a ridge, that each of the stepped lots was considered a ridge. He said the structure would block his view and would lack conformity with the rest of the tract as there were no other two-story homes in the area. He said he and Mr. Bell would research the issue of the CC&Rs. Dr. Brown said he spoke with Mr)(. Johnson on Sunday and Xhe expressed two concerns, one being the aesthetics of fitting into the character of the neighborhood and the other being the blocking of their view of the two roads. He said $he indicated there would be no ocean view blockage to their home. 3/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mary Louise Salter, 3338 Deluna Drive, said she lived there for 21 years and has enjoyed her home during that time. She was opposed to the project and saw no reason for allowing it. Mrs. Cron said her neighbors had trees much higher than her proposal. She said her daughter has lived in the home since she was twelve and that it was difficult to buy homes today. She agreed to relocate the hot water heater which Mr. McTaggart found objectionable. Dr. Baer said there had been some criticism about the appearance of the house and asked if the applicant had considered a different design. Mrs. Cron said the second story addition would cover only that portion of the house without open beams, and that redesigning would result in a lot of alteration. She said a single story addition would not accommodate the size addition they need and also would block the view of the neighbors. Dr. Brown said the Commission could not consider aesthetic aspects in reaching decisions. He did not agree that this was on a ridge and could not make any findings for granting the appeal. He felt the application fit the criteria of the Code. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to deny the appeal of Height Variation No. 232 because all of the findings for granting the application can be made. Mr. McTaggart agreed that the points covered by the opponents were largely aesthetic points which the Code did not allow the Commission to consider. Mr. Hughes summarized the items of concern as being loss of privacy, de- crease in property values, loss of sun, loss of view, and development being built on a ridge. Mr. Gamble said the property was more characteristic of a terrace, not a ridge, per the definition which the City has consistently used. Mr. Hughes said there was concern expressed by some of the neighbors and Commissioners with regard to design and aesthetics and he urged the appli- cant to give the issue some additional thought as to whether there are ways to modify the design to meet those concerns. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSTAIN: Baer ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 77 Mr. Shepherd said the request was for 2855 Colt Road a 22 -foot 6 -inch high second story Applicant: Soutar addition on the eastern portion of an Landowner: Schmid existing structure. He said the exist- ing structure encroaches to within eight feet of the front right-of-way easement line. He said site inspection revealed that the addition would not have a significant effect upon the primary view from the neighboring properties. He described the site characteristics and said due to the extreme slope immediately to the rear of the structure, little suitable building area for a single story addition was available. He said staff was able to make all of the required findings and that no letters were received. Staff recommended approval of the variance. Mr. Hughes asked about an excavation and large retaining wall to the west of the applicant's property and suggested that staff check it out. 3/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Shepherd said the site Was not on a ridge, that it was instead a terraced situation. Public hearing was opened. Susan Schmid, 2855 Colt Road, had nothing to add to that presented in the staff report. She said she would appreciate having staff investigate the wall on the next lot. Michael Soutar, applicant and architect, 309 Calle de Andalucia, Redondo Beach, said there were existing two-story homes in the area. He did not know what would be built on the property to the west but felt it would be very difficult to build a one-story home there. He said it would be difficult to extend this house on the first level and did not feel --the pro- posed plan would violate the aesthetics of the neighborhood as it already was a mix. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown noted that the landowner was an attorney working for a firm that was employed by the medical group to which he belongs. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Reso- lution No. 82-6, thereby approving Variance No. 77 based on the findings as presented in the resolution. 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. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower reported on the Council actions at the March 2, meeting as follows: 1) initiated a Code amend- ment to deal with minor nonconforming structures, allowing the replacement of damaged structures such as fences without a minor exception permit or variance, said amendment to be coming before the Commission probably in April; 2) initiated an estate zone study, which would also be considered by the Commission at the end of April; and 3) approved alternate #2 of the fire resistant roofing study, changing the wording slightly. Director Hightower referred to the memo transmitted to the Commission to- night concerning the Commission/staff dinner meeting scheduled for March 17 at 6:30 p.m. at the Hungry Tiger Restaurant. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes said the Commission would be meeting with the Council on the 5th Tuesday of this month (March 30), but that this time it would be a group meeting with all of the other Committees also. He said he was asked to solicit items for discussion and that he would contact each of the Commissioners for suggested items. Dr. Brown noted that he would be unable to attend that meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 9:25 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Wednesday, March 17, 1982, at 6:30 p.m. 3/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-