Loading...
PC MINS 19820810r +r MINUTES City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting August 10, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, Hinchliffe LATE ARRIVAL: McTaggart ABSENT: None (0q Also present were Associate Planners Ann Negendank and Sandra Lavitt, Assistant Planner Joseph Gamble, Assistant Planner Dino Putrino, and Associate Planner Alice Bergquist Angus. 14112-01-d� o-,4- ;t l4, C x//cN��.� CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving A) the minutes of the meeting of June 22, 1982; B) Conditional Use Permit No. 81 and Resolution 82-17; and C) Grading Application No. 606. By motion of Mr. McNulty, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to hear Item 7, Capital Improvement Program at this time. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Manager Guluzzy requested the Commission to give input relative to the suggested programs. He stated that the Hesse and Point Vicente Parks are to cost approximately $150,000. per year once they are completed to the 0 & M phase. Mr. McTaggert arrived at 7:40 p.m. Dr. Brown noted that the Commission's concerns were expressed on Page 5 of the July 27, 1982 minutes. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Capital Improvement Program dated 82-83 and reported to the Director of Planning that it is in compliance with the General Plan. VARIANCE NO. 82 Assistant Planner Joseph Gamble stated that GRADING APPLICATION NO. 604 on August 2, 1982, a letter was received 6386 Chartres Drive from Mr. Richard Hill of 6374 Chartres Drive Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. C. Bisgaard stating that a reduction in the structure's Applicant: Jack H. Remington height (116") would materially reduce the view impairment to his property. He stated that staff felt that the proposed grading is excessive beyond that necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot even though the applicant had offered to lower the total height of the structure by one foot, six inches (11611). Mr. Gamble noted that the General Plan addressed the issue of the alteration of topographical features within the City, and it states that the alteration of terrain should be minimized through the use of structural techniques which conform to the terrain rather than alter the terrain to suuport the structure. Public Hearing was re -opened. Christopher Bisgaard, 2941 Mountain Pine Drive, La Cresenta, stated that the Hills, his neighbors, were concerned about their view from the back porch area. He explained to the Hills that he would lower the house's elevation by one foot six inches (116"). He explained to the Commission that after discussing the revised plans with his neighbor, Mr. Hill had no objection. He claimed that Mr. Hill also had no objection to nine foot ceilings in the living, room, family room, and dining room. He stated that the racket - ball court will be totally underground; however, staff's interpretation of the height of the building included the racketball court. He stated that, in regards to grading, he would come within the grading requirements if the pool and racketball court were not constructed. He urged the Commission to consider the above before reaching a final decision. He mentioned that the Architectural Committee hdd reject6d his revised plans. Jack Remington, architect, (applicant), 304 Vista del Mar, Redondo Beach, noted that if they bring the house closer to the street, they would be obstructing the views of two houses across the street. Caroline Bowerton, 6390 Chartres Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the house should either be lowered or brought up to the street. 112-.� TOM 4&i-, Chairman of the Architectural Committee, stated that the plans were rejected based on unreasonable view obstruction. Mr. McNulty asked if those plans included decreasing the height of the ceilings. 4 Mr. .4ape replied in the negative. Dr. Brown asked if one reason for denial was due to the size of the house. Mr. Ali replied in the negative. By motion of Mr. McNulty, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes stated that the proposed plans include excessive grading and that it would be difficult to make the required Findings. 08/10/82 PLANNING CORM SSION MINUTES -2- �Z Mr. McNulty requested additional information from staff as to whether the grading could be reduced. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, that the Plarming Commission deny Variance No. 82 and Grading Application No 604 based on staff's Findings and with the request that the draft Resolution be brought to the next meeting. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES- Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: McNulty ABSEXIT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 15 calendar days. SITE PIAN REVIEW NO. 2142 Miscellaneous hearing 5806 Ocean Terrace - Lot 22, Tract 31617 Landowner/Applicant: Kris Kazarian in the tract. She offered to the the third alternative to allow at foot maxirmn retaining wall. Associate Plarmer Sandra Lavitt stated that the applicant was requesting approval for the construction of pool decking, a three-foot retaining wall and fire pit which would encroach into the "BGR!" area. She noted that the house was built close to the 'SM' line, as in the case with much of the construction Commission three alternatives, recommending grade patio slabs, decking and one three - Ms. Lavitt informed the Coamissian that this was not to be a public hearing, but that a representative of the owner was present to address the Commission. Mr. McTaggart gave a background of this issue to the Candssion. Dave Hayward, 2550 W. 37th Street, Torrance, representing the applicant, stated that the proposed plans would not obstruct the views of neighbors, and the proposed plans would not impact the aesthetics from the dam hill side. He noted that the plans had the "BGR!' line in the proper position, adding that the previous displacement of the line was not the error of staff. Mr. McNulty asked if the "BGR!' line had ever been varied. Ms. Lavitt replied in the negative. Mr. McNulty stated that he would support the original interpretation of the "BGW' line. Ms Lavitt informed the Commission that the fire pit was below grade and the planter box was above grade. She stated that there were 80 lots, and several of the lots that had houses on them were built right to the lines. M ;2 I �Ift HWIA&L -3- 3 Dr. Brown recomiyanded that the Commission follow the original building grading restriction line as am =a"rrebetiea o4-Z,5;k-A-kI� Mr. Hinchliffe noted that the consensus of the Comiission was that the line should not be violated, and the Commission had reached a consensus t&4-43,yoAhhe word "footing 1144Af> tef t f � >91A. "AZ4.;%./ ri-Ax- ICU "6 Mr. McNulty asked percentage OfV; �Toes were under struction. jA. I -Is. Levitt replied that approximately 50% were under construction. egl_,Y_`"``�' Mr. Hayward stated that they did not want to request a variance because they did not want to move the "BGR!' line. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McNulty, that the Planning Commission adopt staff's interpretation of the allowable uses of the "BGR!' area.and that a three-foot maxinm retaining wall be subject to the Planning Cmnd_ssion's approval. Mr. McTaggart believed that the three-foot retaining wall may be inappropriate in some cases, and it would violate the position of the "BGR!'. He felt that it would be inappropriate to state that *vthree- foot wall would be acceptable at this time . #_ Ly o--T_k­'L, Roll call vote was as follows. AYES. Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: Brown ABSENT: None By motion of Mr. McNulty, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Commission approve the three-foot wall on the location, as submitted. RECESS At 9:30 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meting was reconvened at 9.35 p.m. with the same menbers present. VARIANCE NO 84 Mr. Putrino stated that the applicant Garage encroachment into rear was requesting approval of a garage setback dealing with an irregularly-shaped lot, 6947 Alta Vista - Lot 31, with the front of the lot being the Tract 32673 narrowest and the rear being the widest. Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. Nori The majority of the lot is flat except Marumoto, the rear 25 to 28 feet which slopes Applicant: Joe Gonzales upward with a 50% slope which abutts Hawthorne Boulevard. He noted that on July 26, 1982, a "Stop Work" order was issued to the property. He stated that staff recomwnded denial of Variance No. 84 due to the negative justification of the four Findings and recommended the adoption of Resolution No. 82. #8/10/82 PIANNING CCI�MSSICIIN MINLITES -4- Public Hearing opened. Joseph Gonzales, 438 Plymouth, los Angeles, applicant, stated that the County required the retaining wall. He stated that the retaining wall was approved by the County, but not by the City. He claimed that the owner of the property was never informed that there was a walkway easement. He noted that the owners have the only lot that has an easement. 11k. Putrino stated that the City approved the wall subject to a 20 -foot setback since the cut had already been made. However, the 20 -foot setback was not maintained. Mr. Gonzales stated that the garage is built, and it is not obstructing anyone's view. Mr. Gonzales noted that he was the recipient of the "Stop Work" order; however, they ceased work only in that section which was encroaching. Pred Eaton, 20615 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he lived across from the house in question. He noted concern for the rear setback being only 14 feet, Code requiring a 20 -foot setback. He stated that the garage in question stands directly in his line of view to Catalina Island. He urged the Conmssion to investigate the possibility of lowering the slope and garage roof as well as investigate the issue of setbacks. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brawn, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McNulty believed that the wall was not situated in the correct location. Mr. Hughes suggested allowing the applicant to reappear before the Commission at their next meeting with revised plans. He wanted to know the location of the corners, the location of the house, the location of the wall, and the location of the garage. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brawn, and unanimously carried, this item was continued and the applicant was instructed to bring back a survey of the plot locating the lot corners and showing the actual as -built distances to the corners of the structures, the location of the retaining wall, and the location of the garage. The drawing is to be signed and dated by the California Registered Land Surveyor. That drawing is then to be presented to staff. Staff is to prepare a detailed report chronologically listing the events that have taken place and showing clearly which items will need a variance or other necessary procedures for building the structures. The public hearing will be reopened at the following meeting. Mr. Hinchliffe advised the applicant to cease work on the garage. -5- is, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 13 Associate Planner Angus stated that the ZONE CHANGE NO. 11 subject site was located adjacent to Institutional to Residential Dauntless Drive between 32210 Helm Place Southwest corner of Ladera Linda and a concrete stairway to the east. site, 32201 Forrestal It is, and has always been, vacant. The Landowner/Applicant: City of site consists of a pad area elevated Rancho Palos Verdes above street level and the toe of a buttressed slope bank to the rear. The slope bank physically separates it from the remainder of the developed site. Imimediately to the west of the subject site and also across Dauntless are single family residences. This adjacent area has a General Plan designation of residential 2-4 dwelling units per acre, and is zoned RS -3. She stated that staff recommended holding a public hearing and that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 13 and Zone Change No. 11 to the City Council. Public Hearing was opened. Joe Gorman, 3675 Vigilance Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, representing the Palos Verdes S. Homeowners Association, stated that they felt as though the City were losing part of the park area. They did not object to the change in use. They did note objection to further issuance of building permits in the area. Carol Midford, 32203 Helm Place, Rancho Palos Verdes, noted opposition to the proposed zone change. She believed it premature. She spoke of concern for the fire danger on the property. She stated that the Fire Department had sent two 21 -day notices to the City. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, that the Planning Com imission approve Planning Commission Resolution 82-11 which is a recommendation to the City Council for a General Plan Amendment No. 13 and Zone Change No. 11. Also, that the Planning Camission include a memo alerting the City Council of a fire hazard. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 15 calendar days. ADJOURNMENT At 11:02 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, August 24, 1982, at 7.30 p.m. [1-