Loading...
PC MINS 19820824M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting August 24, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd, Joseph Gamble and Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR Calendar, to be considered at the At the request of Dr. Brown, the minutes of the meeting of August 10, 1982 were pulled from the Consent end of the meeting. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar, as amended, was unanimously passed, thereby adopting Resolution No. 82-19 denying Variance No. 82. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885 Ms. Lavitt said this was a continued CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79 item.. She reviewed the major issues of Forrestal northwest of Pirate Dr. the project; i.e. the quarry slope, Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties grading, geology, etc. She said the Applicant: Sikand Engineering developer has agreed to participate in the improvements to the Portuguese Bend playing fields. She reviewed the re- visions to the site plan. She said grades have been changed to enhance the interior view of some of the lots; and lot lines for seven lots have been changed to include the slope along Intrepid within the lot boundaries and that said slope would be regraded to a 2:1 slope, instead of a 1:1 slope remaining in common open space. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the conditional use permit and recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative map. She noted that the developer was disagree- ing with the park dedication fee listed in the map conditions, but that the Council would deal with that issue when the matter is before that body, that it was not to be considered by the Planning Commission. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said other than through the CC&Rs, maintenance of the bank would be difficult to enforce. She said the Code allows construction on Saturday, and that her interpretation of week- days would include Saturday, but that the Commission may be more restrictive and specifically limit work to Monday through Friday only. She said the 15 - foot setbacks have been shown on every map since the project's -submittal. She noted that the lots were small and that the setbacks conformed to the adjacent properties. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was re -opened. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, said they tried to simplify the lot lines as requested by the Commission. Re the slope, he said maintenance could be handled by an easement to the Homeowners Association or by in- cluding the area as part of the common open space. He estimated grading at six to eight weeks and said the utility poles would be removed. He said the site envelope defined where improvements could not be placed, but did not specify where improvements could be placed. Mr. McTaggart was concerned that a direct access driveway with a 15 -foot setback would result in cars parking over the sidewalk. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, 15 Marconi, Irvine, said they lowered some of the area to provide views and that it then made sense to regrade the slope to 2:1. He thought maintenance of the slope should be done by the Homeowners Association rather than individual homeowners. He said it was no problem to remove setbacks from the map, and noted that the project would be a lot sales program rather than the original plan to build the homes. He said there would be a riding and hiking trail along Intrepid and Forrestal and requested the elimination of a parkway there and in the area behind some of the homes along Intrepid. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the setbacks should be removed from the tract map, since the project is a lot sales program. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution No. 82-20, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 79 subject to the condi- tions of Exhibit "A", amended as follows: change conditions 16 and 18 to read "Monday through Friday" rather than "weekdays"; change condition 7 to require the landscape plan and the CC&Rs to specifically include Homeowners Association maintenance of parkways, walls, slope, decorative planting area, signing area, etc. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37885 subject to the condi- tions of Exhibit "A" of the draft Council resolution, modified as follows: removal of the building envelope outline from the tentative map; changing condition 34 to include "The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the landscape maintenance of the first eight feet of parkway on all interior streets and Forrestal Drive."; and the area adjacent tol-the-hiking'trail along Forrestal and Intrepid shall follow Case "B" in the Street Standards Study for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes said the minutes should reflect that removal of the setback lines from the map did not remove the requirement that the Development Code be followed. VARIANCE NO. 83 Mr. Putrino said the request was to 30757 Rue Valois allow a room addition to encroach five Landowner/Applicant: Chapman and one-half feet into the front yard setback (not including the proposed fireplace). He said since the proposed structure would cause interference with vehicular access, the garage door is proposed to be moved to the east side of the garage facing the street, re- quiring a new curb cut and creating a direct access driveway with a sub- standard distance of nine feet from the sidewalk to the garage opening. He said a normal sized vehicle could not park in the proposed driveway without hanging over the sidewalk. He said an alternative would be to reduce the length of the addition and maintain a 16 -foot setback which would be handled administratively under a minor exception permit, thus eliminating the 8/24/82 PLAN14ING COMMISSION MINUTES EV49 W. requirement for a variance. Staff recommended denial of the variance due to the negative justification of the required four findings, as stated in the staff report. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Putrino said staff discussed the alternative with the applicant. He said it did not appear that a second story addition would cause any significant view impairment if the applicant chose that option. He was not sure that there would be adequate space in the rear yard for the addition because of the slope. He said if the addition was cut back as suggested in the staff report, it appeared that vehicular access to the garage may still experience interference. Public hearing was opened. Robert Chapman, 30757 Rue Valois, said they wished to add a family room next to the kitchen and that it could not be positioned somewhere -else. He said the present setback is considered legal nonconforming and that all of the structures on the street have the same setback, approxmately six with garage access similar to what is proposed. He said their parking would be limited to either the garage or the street. In response to Commission questions, he said the addition could go in the other direction in the interior of the lot but would require the elimination of a covered patio and deck. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown said he could not make the required findings and was concerned about creating a driveway access like the one proposed. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 82-21, thereby denying Variance No. 83 based on the findings in the staff report. Mr. Hughes asked if a variance of this kind could be conditioned requiring that vehicular access be maintained in the garage and prohibiting parking in the driveway. Ms. Lavitt said that would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Hinchliffe said he had difficulty with this request because of the number of similar driveways in the neighborhood. Mr. Hughes agreed with Mr. Hinchliffe and said he could make the findings. Mr. McNulty asked if the project could be conditioned to require a "roll up" garage door to allow extra room for parking in the driveway. Mr. McTaggart said the project would result in a reduction of off-street parking, and he did not think they should compound the existing problem. He said there were only nine feet between the garage and the sidewalk and pointed out that there was an alternative of adding the family room above the garage. Mr. McNulty said building up would be expensive and the proposed location was adjacent to the kitchen which is the traditional location for a family room. Dr. Brown did not think they should create a violation of the Code. He said there was clearly the square footage to place the addition elsewhere on the lot. He said he could not make the findings. Mr. Hughes noted it was unusual for Commissioners to suggest that someone build up instead of out, as it has always been the other way around. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, McTaggart NOES: Hughes, McNulty, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None 8/24/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- :3 s �r Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to adopt Resolution No. 82-21, thereby approving VariancF No. 83 based on the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the in- tended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district because the way the house is situated on the lot the variance is necessary in order to provide for reasonable development of the property with the addition and for the driveway to provide reasonable access to the existing garage. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district since there are others in the neighborhood with similar circumstances. C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially det- rimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in whish the property is located since it will be similar to those in the area. D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan since it is encouraging reasonable development of the property without encroaching into the views of neighboring residences. Mr. McTaggart strongly opposed the above motion saying that it contradicts many years of work by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that there is an off-street parking requirement in the Code for two spaces in addition, to the two required garage spaces.*,�- t-4�AA­--f-i d ,moo ,.. cat 4;;,/u�yt�-d °1Q-Ga-i+*-AW��-c��-rL� Mr. Hughes and Mr. McNulty amended the above motion to inc"lode a condition that the garage door be the type that rolls up. Dr. Brown concurred with Mr. McTaggart. He said that the motion presented above was directly contrary to the purpose of the variance procedures and the goals of the General Plan. Roll call vote on the above motion was as,follows: AYES: Hughes, McNulty, Hinchliffe NOES: Brown, McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 607 Mr. Gamble said this item was before Lot 4, Tract 32574, Seacliff the Commission because the requested Landowner: P.V. Seacliff Devel. grading, houseprint, and driveway Applicant: John Vilicich location differ from the approved plan for the lot. He said the proposed houseprint, driveway, and tennis court require more grading (approximately six percent more) than the approved plan, but the total export was about five percent less. He said the pro- posed height of the house would not exceed the maximum Code limit and the proposed ridge outline conformed more closely to the originally approved structure than did the earlier proposal. 'He said the six-foot tennis court fence combined with the two -foot downslope wall would be considerably less disruptive visually when compared to the earlier proposal. Staff recommended approval o.f the project since it complies with all of the criteria of the Development Code. 8/24/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- 0 In response to a Commission question, Mr. Gamble said he did not think it was the most functional design for a tennis court and thought the six-foot fence may cause problems in the future. John Vilicich, 1622 South Gaffey Street, San Pedro, said the fence would not affect the visual beauty from the road, and he referred to the plans on display. He said he brought the tennis court down and did not think that the fence would be detrimental as seen from the Drive, particularly when the landscaping is planted. In response to Commission questions, he said this proposal differs from the previous one in that they reduced the size of the house, the envelope, and the lowered tennis court. He said the homes immediately to the east are located closer to the road and that the owners of this lot have sacrificed their view of Marineland for the sake of a tennis court. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 607 was approved. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 9:10 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. with the same members present. SIGN PERMIT NO. 154 Mr. Shepherd said in July of 1982 the 2758 Silver Spur Road applicant secured approval for two Landowner/Applicant: World signs to be placed along the southern Savings and Loan and eastern building elevations. He said tonight's request was for a third permanent illuminated identification sign to be placed along the western building elevation which fronts along the facility's parking lot. He reviewed the Code considerations and said per Section 17.52.060 this proposed sign was not permitted. Staff recom- mended denial since the Code is clear and does not permit this third sign. Mike Behnke, 6823 Wilderness Court, Stockton, representing World Savings and Loan, said they originally requested signs on three elevations. He said they thought they were conforming with all Codes. He described the three signs and said they were requesting approval of the third sign because it would give better visibility. In response to Commission questions and comments, Mr. Behnke asked about moving the approved sign from the east to the west elevation if only two signs are permitted. He did not think any future development in the area would block visibility of that sign. He said, however, that he could not at this time make a decision for the applicant regarding placement of the signs. Dr. Brown said he could not go along with the request for three signs and recommended denial of this sign permit since it violates the Code, as out- lined by staff. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to deny Sign Permit No. 154. Mr. McTaggart said given the area and the way it is developed, and the con- fusion when traveling down Silver Spur Road, this was one occasion where he thought the requested signage was warranted. He thought the western eleva- tion was a better location because of its visibility. He said since Mr. Behnke could not make a decision tonight for the applicant regarding the placement of signs, perhaps the item should be tabled to a future date when the information is available. He said the intent of the Code is to avoid 8/24/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- the proliferation of signs, but that in this case the requested signage was appropriate due to its location. Mr. Hinchliffe was uncomfortable about discussing switching the approved sign under Sign Permit No. 152 from one side to the other, particularly since the Director of Planning is on vacation and staff has not had the opportunity to review this possibility. The above motion, -denying Sign Permit No. 154, was unanimously approved. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. He suggested that the representative consult with World Savings and Loan on the issue of where the signs should be located, and that staff make the determination of whether a change in sign location would be permitted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 33 REVISION Ms. Lavitt said the request was to Lot 9, Tract 32110, south end of permit a residence to be built outside Crenshaw Boulevard of the approved buildng footprint. She Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. Rodgeveller said the two issues are the change of footprint and the minor exception permit for a 20 -percent decrease in the total sidevard setback requirement. She said although the minor exception permit is an administrative decision the application enters into the overall con- cept of altering the footprint. She said the orientation of the approved footprint does not maximize the available view and that from a planning point of view the staff has no objection to the change of footprint. She said the problem lies in the configuration of the proposed footprint in that the design of the structure would encroach four feet into the required side - yard. She said there appeared to be sufficient area on the lot to redesign the building to fit within the established setbacks. Staff recommended that the Commission review the plan and provide direction to the applicant to redesign the house to conform to the sideyard setbacks and indicate to the applicant the Commission's consensus of opinion on the alteration of the footprint. Barry Rodgeveller, 2415 Via Sonoma, Palos Verdes Estates, owner of the lot, said he was available to answer any Commission questions. Patrick Killen, 125 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, architect, referred to the exhibit on display. He said the approved footprint did not maximize the view, and that the conceivable building had the back por- tion built up as two stories. He said they were proposing to have the -two stories in the front with a more impressive ceiling plan across the back. He said the pool was originally located in the front, but that they propose locating it in the back. He said they did attempt to meet the approved footprint, but that one of the prime considerations of his client was to maintain a back yard and put the pool there for -privacy. He said they were maintaining a minimum eight -foot setback on each side of the structure. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, said he owned the lot at the end of the street and had no problems with what the applicant has proposed. He said it was a good basic layout, and he thought a single story structure that follows the contours of the lot (as is proposed) would be better than what he, as subdivider, had originally proposed and the Commission had approved. He compared the new proposal with the approved footprint which was on dis- play. Mr. Hinchliffe said there was a lot of effort put forth by the applicant, Commission, staff, and Council in carefully siting the residences in this development. Mr. McNulty noted that he was not on the Commission when the tract was approved. He said tonight's request appeared to be a self-imposed hardship, but thought the concept was fine. 8/24/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- ("I Mr. McTaggart said the request for revision should have been made before substantial plans had been drawn. He said he could not support the proposal. Dr. Brown concurred with Mr. McTaggart. Mr. Hughes also agreed with Mr. McTaggart, noting that there was a great deal of time involved in analyzing view impact and the relationship of homes for this tract. Mr. Hinchliffe said the ob3ective of all the time spent on this tract was to come up with a plan for a site that is considered to be special and, there- fore, warranted a lot of attention in detailing the footprint area. He said he would like to see effort on the part of the architect to stay closer, if not within, the lines on the approved map. He said the applicant should re- design a plan that does not deviate as far from the limits of the approved footprint. He felt the proposal went beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Mr. McTaggart noted that mass was as important as height in considering the footprint. Mr. Burrell said the mass was less with the proposed revision. Mr. Hinchliffe said it was difficult for the Commission to visualize that and suggested that the applicant present cross sections or make some effort to visually show the Commission the effects of this revision. He said the presentation this evening was not very convincing. Mr. Killen said this proposal is a much more custom scheme and is tailored more to the site. Mr. Hinchliffe said there was a clear consensus to deny the request to deviate from the approved plan. Ms. Lavitt suggested that the Commission continue the item and if the revised project still requires Commission review that it be brought back at that time. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the item was continued and the applicant was directed to redesign the project per the Commission's concerns. APPROVAL OF MINUTES By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of August 10, 1982, were approved with the following amendments: page 1, paragraph 2, add as last sentence "City Manager Guluzzy was also present to speak on the Capital Improvement Program."; page 2, paragraphs 5 and 7, speaker's name should be "Alley"; page 4, paragraph 2, change line 3 to read "on the meaning of the word "footing," which originally applied to drainage struc- tures -.-The interpretation of the Commission was to include ootings for small retaining walls. Mr. Hughes suggested that all requests for retaining walls in the "BGR" area be reviewed by the Commission."; page 4, paragraph 7, line 3, change to read "....to state that any other three-foot...."; page 6, paragraph 4, line 2, change to read "....it was premature. She...."; and page 6, paragraph 6, line 2, resolution no.'should be "82-18". ADJOURNMENT 8/24/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 10:50 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, September 14, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. -7- M