Loading...
PC MINS 19820914M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 14, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Assistant Planners Joseph Gamble and Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR There being no ob3ection, it was so minutes to the end of the meeting. Mr. McTaggart pulled the minutes of the meeting of August 24, 1982 from the Consent Calendar (the only item). ordered to move consideration of the VARIANCE NO. 84 Mr. Putrino said this request for a 6947 Alta Vista (Lot 31, garage encroachment into the rear yard Tract 32673) setback was first presented to the Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. Marumato Commission on August 10, at which time Applicant: Joe Gonzalez the Commission discussed and tabled the item and instructed the applicant to supply staff with signed survey plans. He said the plans submitted on August 24 show that the garage and retaining wall maintain a 15 -foot rear yard setback and a 5 -foot side yard setback. Staff recommended that since the:cut for the retaining wall has already been made and restoration would not be sound, the retaining wall in its current location be approved. Staff further recommended that the garage be cut back 5 feet, maintaining a 20 -foot rear yard setback and a 16 -foot height limitation. Public hearing was re -opened. Joseph Gonzalez, 438 N. Plymouth Blvd., Los Angeles, said he had the property surveyed, as directed by the Commission at the last meeting. He said the retaining wall was approved by the County and that the house was built per approved plans. He presented sketches of the existing proposal and the alternative as suggested by Mr. Hughes at the last meeting of going to mid- point of the existing roof and cutting the garage back towards Hawthorne Boulevard, with a center height of 13 feet 6 inches. Fred Eaton, 30615 Cartier Drive, across the street (Hawthorne Boulevard) from the subject property, said he was not opposed to the alternative dis- cussed tonight and thought it -was a good solution --to the problem. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said staff recommended removal of the rear length of the garage and leaving the roof treatment basically the same. He thought the appli- cant's suggested alternative to leave the rear yard as is and change the pitch of the roof, leaving the retaining wall in its existing location, was a more satisfactory approach. Mr. McTaggart said the applicant should submit a plan showing the structural changes prior to approval of the variance. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission conceptually approved the project and instructed staff to prepare a resolution approving Variance No. 84 for consideration at the next meeting. Approval of the project is to be subject to the following conditions: 1) That the rear retaining wall remain where currently located; 2) That the pitch of the roof at the rear of the building be made equal to the pitch at the front of the roof, as indicated on the applicant's sketch presented to the Commission tonight; 3) That the roof treatment (materials) be the same as the rest of the structure on the lot; and 4) That an acceptable plan be submitted prior to approval. Approval of the variance is to be based on the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district because testimony indicated that the building was possibly approved for the site by the County; the retaining wall is built and it is not safe to tear it down, it is a more aesthetically -pleasing structure with a lower pitch rather than cutting the building back, and from a view enhancement point of view it makes more sense to go with the double pitch roof. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning dis- trict since there are two large easements on the property and, therefore, no alternate locations for the garage. C. That the granting of the variance will not be mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located because the proposed structure will not obstruct any views. D. That the granting of such a variance will not be con- trary to the objectives of the General Plan. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that it had not been satis- factorily demonstrated that an administrative error had occurred. Mr. Hinchliffe explained to the applicant that the Commission conceptually approved the project for the existing retaining wall to stay and for modi- fications to the roof along the lines of the sketch presented to the Commis- sion this evening. He advised the applicant that plans must be submitted that meet the requirements of staff in determining what the project will look like. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 3649 Ms. Lavitt said this parcel map, pre - VARIANCE NO. 86 viously approved by the Commission, 5001 east of Crest & P.V. Dr. East was inadvertently allowed to expire. Landowner: Dorothy Carr She said the variance application was Applicant: South Bay Engineering for a reduction in lot size. She said 9/14/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the --site has frontage on both Palos Verdes Drive East and Crest Road. She said a study was undertaken during the original review of this project which compared lot sizes in the surrounding area and found that approximately 30 lots ranged in size from 11,000 to 13,000 square feet. Because of the smaller lot sizes, it was staff's opinion then and now that the variance is justified in this case because the proposed lot size and configuration is consistent with surrounding lots in the same zoning district. Staff recom- mended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, discuss the issues, and approve the parcel map and variance. Public hearing was opened. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, 304 Tejon Place, Palos Verdes Estates, said this is exactly the same project as was brought before the Commission about one year ago, that there had been no changes. He said they inadver- tently allowed the map to expire and requested that the project be re- activated. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart said he still did not think the project was desirable for the City. He said he intended to vote no on the project for the same reasons as before -----that the General Plan requires restricting access onto major thoroughfares. Mr. Hughes said since the City Council overturned the Commission's previous denial of the project and there has been no change on the Council it seemed futile to put the applicant through all the trouble of appealing the deci- sion again. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to adopt Resolution No. 82-22, thereby approving Variance No. 86 based on the findings presented in the staff report. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, Hinchliffe NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 82-23, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 3649 subject to the condi- tions contained in Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, Hinchliffe NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal both decisions to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 85 Mr. Putrino said the request was for 4465 Miraleste Drive the construction of a garage with a Landowner/Applicant: Rumery recreation room above in the front yard setback. He said although the structure is proposed to be located three feet from the front property line, there exists a 25 -foot frontage access between the front property line and the improved roadway. He said the access is a part of the City's public right-of-way but that the City has no plans to widen the street. He said the subject lot has enough - buildable area for relocating it 17 feet directly towards the rear property line, which would eliminate the need for a variance. Staff recommended approval of the variance since all of the required findings can be made. 9/14/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MIC 0 0 In response to Commission questions, Mr. Putrino said the alternative was discussed with the applicant who did -not wish to explore it. _ Dr. Brown said coming out of the driveway was very hazardous because of the lack of visibility due to the landscaping. He wondered if there were any requirements re visibility and keeping the landscaping trimmed. He was concerned that it was a very dangerous situation. Director Hightower said the City's ordinance deals with intersections, not private driveways. Mr. McNulty thought they should either require landscape changes or limit use to the north access only. He said the situation as it exists is danger- ous and was concerned about the City's liability. He said the hazard exists not only for the resident but to all vehicles traveling on the street. John Rumery, 4465 Miraleste Drive, said he has owned the property for 25 years and has never had a garage as the City now requires, only a carport. He said he has two antique cars and has been turned down on insurance because of no garage. He said he is also troubled by animals coming onto his property and damaging the cars. He said the reason he wanted the north access was because of the traffic. He said they always come in by the south and leave by the north and that they instruct their visitors to do the same. In response to Commission questions, he said if he moved the garage back he would lose all of the landscaping in the rear yard area, but that he was still considering the alternative of moving the garage back and would like the option of putting the structure where it fits best. He said closing off the south end would create a bottleneck and it would be impossible to turn around. He said he did plan to install a sink in the new structure for washing up after working on the cars, but that there would be no major plumbing. He said he was thinking of converting the existing carport to a large bath and exercise room. Director Hightower noted that the existing carport is considered legal nonconforming but that, because of the setback requirements, it could not be expanded. She said converting it as suggested by the applicant would require a variance. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to adopt Resolution No. 82-24, thereby approving Variance No. 85, based on the findings pre- sented in the staff report. Mr. McTaggart suggested a condition that no more than one sink be allowed. Since it was a separate structure, he was concerned it might someday be converted to another unit. Dr. Brown suggested a condition concerning the visibility problem. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred with Dr. Brown, and said this was an opportunity to protect both the applicant and the City from potential problems. Director Hightower said staff would have to come back with appropriate wording for a condition of that nature. Dr. Brown said they should consider the safety of both the applicant and the people that drive along Miraleste Drive. He said it appears that the applicant is not yet sure where to place the structure and thought there should be a specific plan for approving the variance. Director Hightower said closing off the south access, as mentioned this evening, would have a bearing on where the building is placed. Mr. Hughes did not feel there was a problem. He said the access has been successfully used for years with no incidents. He said his motion still stands and would not accept the proposed conditioning. 9/14/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'S'ES W-1 0 0 Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Hughes NOES: Brown, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe suggested referring the matter back to staff. He said al- though there was conceptual approval for the project, the Commission must deal with the visibility problem on the south side of the building. Mr. McNulty and Dr. Brown concurred with Mr. Hinchliffe. Mr. McTaggart said he was uncomfortable approving something for which there are no plans. Mr. Hinchliffe said they first needed to resolve the access and visibility issues since they may dictate where the structure should be placed. Regarding hazards, Mr. Rumery said the entire street is dangerous. He said in the 25 years he has lived in the house, there has never been an accident because they are very careful themselves and with their guests. He said there was one accident across the street. Mr. Hinchliffe said the issue of a hazardous situation has been discussed at a public hearing and, therefore, is now a matter of public record which creates a potential liability problem for the City. He said awards like the one recently given in a suit against Redondo Beach are literally bank- rupting small cities and that the Commission is trying to resolve the problem in the interest of the applicant and the City. Mr. Hughes noted that the applicant testified that the entire street is hazardous and that is, therefore, also a matter of public record. Mr. Rumery said a simple solution to the liability issue would be for the City to dedicate the property back to the residents, particularly since there are no plans to widen Miraleste Drive. He said the trees in front are his only protection from the effects of traffic and that the livability of the house is a major concern of his. He did not want to cut the trees down. Mr. Hinchliffe advised the applicant that the Commission could not deal with the dedication question. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 615 Mr. Gamble said this item was before Lot 15, Tract 32574; Seacliff the Commission because the requested Landowner: David Whittlesey grading, houseprint, and driveway Applicant: Roy C. Bayer location differ from the approved plan for the lot. He said this proposal requires approximately 30 percent less grading than the originally proposed plan, none of the proposed retaining walls exceed their respective height limits, the house has been situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction from adjacent lots, and the project does not violate any setback regulations. Staff recommended approval since the project complies with the criteria of the Code. There was no one present to speak on the matter. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to approve Grading Application No. 615. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Gamble said staff had not yet made the final determination on the height variation application but the cross sections indicated no problem with adjacent views. He said the finial on the roof was considered to be an architectural feature, like a chimney, and that it may not be higher than two feet above the roof line. He said the maximum driveway slope was 18 percent. 9/14/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- ✓r- The above motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower referred to the memo concerning the Council's request for further elaboration on the Commis- sion's comments on the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would attend the September 16 City Council work session, representing the Planning Commission. Director Hightower referred to the memo concerning the fire resistant roof study. She said the Fire Department is unable to conduct a fire hazard assessment for the City as originally planned, but will assist staff as much as possible. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McTaggart proposed amending the minutes by adding to paragraph 2 of page 4 the following sentence: "Mr. McTaggart wanted the record to reflect that in his opinion the above mo- tion was not only one of the longest ever made but probably also the most illogical." By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, the minutes of the meeting of August 24, 1982, as amended above, were approved, with Mr. Hughes dis- senting. Mr. Hughes said he could not approve minutes that include the kind of language added by Mr. McTaggart as he felt it was inappropriate for the official minutes. COMMISSION REPORTS 9/14/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Dr. Brown reported that he would not be able to attend the September 28 meeting as he will be out of town. At 9:08 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, September 28, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. (6