Loading...
PC MINS 19820427MINUTES City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting April 27, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Acting Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart ABSENT: Hughes Also present were Associate Planners Ann M. W. Negendank, Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Assistant Planner Joseph Gamble. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, with the exception of the minutes of the meeting of April 13, 1982, which were pulled to be discussed at the end of the meeting. By this action, the Commission denied a request to delete condition no. 12 from Resolution No. 81-61 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 14538, as recommended in the staff report. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14570 Ms. Negendank reviewed the history of 5 Rockinghorse Road the project and said the request was Landowner: Julius &_Martha Korta for the division of a 43,552 square Applicant: South Bay Engineering foot parcel into two lots in an RS -2 zoning district. She said lot measure- ments include a portion of the asphalt roadway. She described lot #1 as a rectangular pad lot with direct access off Rockinghorse Road, containing an existing residence and related struc- tures. She said this lot did not conform to the required setback standards, that the garage would be relocated toward the street, still on lot #1, the retaining wall should be moved at least three feet toward the street, and :. the metal sheds would have to be relocated to conform to the setbacks. She described lot #2 as a flag lot with an existing corral in the southeast corner and a concrete pad. She said this lot did not coform to the minimum depth measurement required by Code, that a minor exception permit would ful- fill the Code requirement but that the decision on Minor Exception Permit No. 119 would not be made until after the Commission conceptually approves the map. She said the City Engineer had requested an engineering geologic and soils report be submitted for review, but that the applicant has re- quested that the problem of lot dimensions and any other concerns be dis- cussed by the Commission first. She reviewed the tentative schedule for processing this map. Staff recommendation was that the public hearing be opened, the Commission conceptually approve the map pending geology review, and the hearing be continued until May 25, 1982. Mr. McTaggart explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hear- ing. Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering, representing the applicant, reviewed the map on display. He said they had submitted a minor exception permit applica- tion for the depth of the lot. He said in order to meet required setbacks they would remove the existing garage. He reviewed the slope and position of the lots. He said the existing corral in the southeast corner would_ be removed. He said they were looking for conceptual_approval.an`d would then proceed with the geology. Julius Korta, 5 Rockinghorse Road, answered questions of the Commission. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to grant conceptual approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 14570 and direct staff to bring back conditions and that the geology review be completed prior to consideration of the final approval. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested the applicant and the adjacent property owner also explore the possibility of working jointly on one flag. Dr. Brown agreed and said that would solve the City's concern about excess flags. Mr. McTaggart said the minor exception process was developed to allow for small variations of the Code such as a reduction in a setback area, not for this kind of request. He felt a 20 -foot reduction was too much to come under a minor exception permit and that this request could not be approved as a variance because it is a self-imposed hardship and, therefore, the findings could not be met. He felt this was a misapplication of the Code and said he could not vote in favor of this project because it was beyond the scope of what was intended. He said he could not support the creation of a land division that would require an alteration in order to be legal, and did not feel the Commission should create substandard lots. He recalled another requested lot split that was denied because it would have required a variance upon completion. He said the General Plan said lots should not be split that create substandard parcels. He felt if the existing house made the land division impractical, then the lot split was impractical. Dr. Brown discussed the possibility of moving the line and encroaching into the setback area of the existing residence on lot #1, and handling that with a minor exception permit instead of the lot depth. Ms. Negendank said the required rear setback was 20 feet and that the dis- tance right now between the proposed property line and the existing residence is 30 feet. She said, however, since there was no residence on parcel #2, a structure could be built to conform to the setback requirements and that staff preferred the minor exception permit for the lot depth rather than setback encroachment. Dr. Baer noted that the lot was 100 x 168 feet and that the applicant was requesting that the width and depth measurements be reversed to meet the Code. Mr. McTaggart said the Code specifically defined the front property line. The above motion failed with the following toll call vote: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe NOES: Baer, McTaggart ABSENT: Hughes Mr. McTaggart did not believe this division of land as proposed was possible under the Code and suggested that an opinion be obtained from the City Attor- ney on the matter before proceeding, that the matter be tabled until an answer is received. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to grant conceptual approval based on the City Attorney's concurrence that said action is appro- priate. Mr. McTaggart said the reference to lot dimension in the minor exception permit section of the Code referred to lot line adjustments and was never intended to eliminate the width or depth requirements iri a lot split. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested bringing the lot line to within 16 feet of the house on lot #1 (which could be handled with a minor exception permit) and said that would change the proposed depth of lot #2 to 114 feet rather than 100 feet, only six feet less than the Code required 120 feet. Mr. McTaggart said he would like clarification from the City Attorney first on whether or not the Code refers to an absolute dimension in new lot splits. 4/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- He suggested that the applicant look at drawing the line on a diagonal and see if that would eliminate the problem. Dr. Brown and Mr. Hinchliffe withdrew the above motion. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to table the matter until the City Attorney responds to the concerns expressed by Mr. McTaggart. Roll call vote was-as7fbllows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: Hughes Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the applicant seek a solution with some ad3ust- ment to the lot line to minimize the lot depth. He said it was clear that they could not make it meet the Code requirement without carving into the existing house. He said Mr. McTaggart's point was well taken in that there may be a violation of the Code involved and that clarification is necessary. Mr. McTaggart said the City Attorney should be asked whether or not a minor exception permit could be granted simultaneously. Dr. Brown agreed with staff about preferring a minor exception permit for the setback rather than lot dimension. He said if the City Attorney agrees that a minor exception permit may be granted for either one, then the ques- tion is which would the Commission prefer. Mr. McTaggart said he would prefer not to create a substandard lot. He asked the possibility of extending the time limit for this project. Ms. Negendank said a 90 -day time extension may be granted. She said this matter should return to the Commission at its next meeting. Mr. Hinchliffe said the questions for the City Attorney are 1) is the staff and applicant interpretation of the Code correct and 2) if not, what kind of minor exception permit could the Commission grant relative to the exist- ing structure. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32322 Ms. Lavitt said this request was for a 6480 Palos Verdes Drive East five -lot subdivision. She said the Landowner: LaRue C. Thomas existing driveway on Palos Verdes Drive Applicant: South Bay Engineering East would be relocated approximately 50 feet to the north and serve both lots 4 and 5, and that access to lots 1, 2, and 3 would be from Diamonte Lane. She said access is readily avail- able to lot #1, which is physically separated from the larger acreage. Since the existing driveway would be removed and a new driveway graded to serve lots 4 and 5, it was staff's contention that the new driveway was contrary to the General Plan policy related to direct access from arterials. She said it was not anticipated that any view obstruction would be encoun--! tered by existing residents due to construction within this subdivision. She said lot #1 is separated from the larger site by Diamonte Lane which bisects the property at this point, and that the square footage of the lot exceeds the minimum requirement of the Code but lacks the minimum depth. She said the applicant has submitted a minor exception permit application for a reduction of that measurement and because of the site's physical dis- location from the larger parcel, it was staff's opinion that a minor excep- tion could be approved for this lot. She said lot #3 currently has a barn on it which could be integrated into a design, up to current Building Code standards with the proper permits, or demolished prior to new construction. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing and discuss the concerns. She said should the City Geologist conclude the review pro- cedure and recommend approval, conditions would be prepared for the next meeting should the Commission find it appropriate. 4/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Dr. Brown did not see the difference between providing a new accessway for lots 4 and 5 and eliminating the old driveway or widening the old driveway so that it could serve both lots. He said either proposal would allow access for two lots instead of one as is currently served, that the impact would be the same. Dr. Baer asked if Diamonte Lane could be moved or if the lot lines could be changed to extend across the road, since it is a private street, to meet the lot dimension for lot #1. Ms. Lavitt said the road could not be moved because of the steep slope. Public hearing was opened. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, said the intent was to create the best possible use of the property. He said he was previously involved in a subdivision up the street where the City Council determined that Palos Verdes Drive East was not an arterial, and access was permitted. He said they were proposing to improve an existing situation. He said each lot far exceeded the required lot size and access was available. He felt the Code should be applied with common sense, since lot #1 is already physically separated from the rest of the site. In response to a Commission question, he said recording proper easements should be no problem if they were to shift the lot line over so that it encompasses all of Diamonte Lane. Mr. McTaggart said there were presently being developed additional residences down at Palos Verdes Drive South which would add an additional burden to Palos Verdes Drive East. He suggested that the question of access be sub- mitted to the Traffic Committee for study. Ms. Lavitt noted that the Director of Public Works has reviewed this plan and agreed with what is proposed. Dr. Baer said Diamonte Lane is a dangerous street from which to exit. He asked if there would be any view impact from the house above lot #1. Mr. McHattie said lot #1 was quite a bit lower and should not represent a problem. Mr. McTaggart noted that the lot was considered a view lot because a sixteen foot structure on lot #1 would not interfere with the view. Kevin Ketchum, 1076 W. 7th Street, Los Angeles, representing the applicant, said the applicant acquired the property prior to development of the area and then granted easements over Diamonte Lane for access to those other lots. He said they proposed moving the drive because of visual impact although it would be much cheaper to leave it where it is. He said the unusual circum- stance in this case is that lot #1 is physically separated from the rest of the site, with a street in between. He said they originally proposed six parcels but due to staff's concerns, they eliminated one parcel and feel that the present plan is compatible with the area and would benefit the community. He did not know exactly when the existing barn was constructed but said it was most definitely more than seven years ago. Mr. McHattie said the soils report had been submitted to the Soils Section of the County Geology Division with answers to the questions raised by the County. Mr. McTaggart said he was not in favor of putting more traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East and that the reason he wanted this matter to go before the Traffic Committee is to determine the lesser of the two evils, i.e. if the Palos Verdes Drive East access was eliminated what effect could that have on Diamonte Lane. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. 4/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. McTaggart felt it was possible to draw lot lines that would meet the Code and not require a minor exception permit. Mr. Hinchliffe pointed out that moving the lot line to the other side of the street would not change the actual lot dimensions of lot #1 and was just playing with the numbers. He agreed that the Traffic Committee should review the access. Dr. Brown agreed that the City Attorney should look into the matter and ad- vise the Commission; however, he did not agree with the necessity of having the Traffic Committee review the access and felt that moving the access was not in violation of the policy of the City. Mr. McTaggart said they were proposing to intensify the use of the driveway to accommodate two residences instead of one, and also it was necessary to improve the visibility. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the item be tabled until the Commission re- ceives information back from the City Attorney and Traffic Committee. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued pending information from the City Attorney concern- ing the appropriateness of issuing a minor exception permit for the creation of a lot of substandard size and information from the Traffic Committee con- cerning necessary improvements to Palos Verdes Drive East at this location, whether or not the sight distance would be improved by relocating the drive- way, would relocation of the driveway be contrary to the General Plan policy, and improvement to the sight distance at the intersection of Diamonte Lane and Palos Verdes Drive East. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 14 Mr. Gamble said on March 2 that the City Minor nonconforming structures Council initiated a Code Amendment to Clarification of front property Section 17.68.060 to allow for the res - line for flag lots toration and replacement of minor non- conforming structures without a variance or minor exception permit. Staff felt, therefore, that the Code should differentiate between major and minor non- conforming structures. Staff suggested appropriate wording in the staff report for the Commission's review. Staff further suggested amending Code Section 17.40.030.A.1. in order to alleviate problems related to interpre- tation of front property lines for flag lots and proposed wording was included in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission consider the in- formation presented: clarification of front property line designation, definition of minor nonconforming structures, and Code Amendment No. 14 for the restoration of minor nonconforming structures. Mr. McTaggart asked if there would be an appeal procedure for determining whether or not there is a hazard. Ms. Negendank said they wanted to avoid an extremely cumbersome process but do want to be sure any hazardous situations are dealt with. She said right now it is proposed that the Director of Planning's determination be final. Mr. McTaggart felt not having an appeal process set up was inconsistent with the policies of the City. Ms. Negendank said an example is if there was an existing fence causing visibility problems and it becomes damaged, it would not be allowed to be replaced because it is considered a hazard. In response to a Commission question, Ms. Lavitt agreed that currently the only way to monitor this was through the site plan review process. Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, said the issue came up because of the problems people were facing trying to repair existing minor structures such 4/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- as fences without having to bring the entire fence up to existing Code. He said conforming to the Code makes sense only if more than 50 percent of the structure is being replaced. He said if anyone does not agree with the decision of the Director df Planning they could always write a letter and be heard by the City Council; he did not feel there should be a formal appeal setup. He said the ob3ect is to avoid creating an inconsistency with the neighborhood and that if there was an extreme hazard perhaps the nuisance should have been removed earlier through abatement. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission concurred with the staff recommendations as presented in tonight's staff report. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of April 13, 1982, were approved with the following amendment: page 2, under roll call vote, should reflect that Mr. Hinchliffe abstained and did not vote yes. STAFF REPORT Ms. Negendank said the May Southwest Area Planning Council meeting would be hosted by the Peninsula Cities at the upper Courtneys. She said the scheduled meeting date is the Friday before Memorial Day (May 28) unless that can be changed. She said solid waste management would be the topic of discussion. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown expressed concern about Dr. Kay's residence where the wall height was limited and other conditions were applied to provide visibility and that now the landscaping was exceeding the height of the wall. Ms. Lavitt said staff was looking into that situation. Dr. Brown also noted a room addition taking place right now at 6613 Via Siena which appears to be too close to the property line. Ms. Negendank said staff would check into it. ADJOURNMENT At 9:49 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, May 11, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. 4/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-