PC MINS 19830208APPROVED AS PRESENTED
ON FEBRUARY 22, 1983
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
February 8, 1983
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 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 Joseph Gamble, and Dino Putrino.
COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Hinchliffe said he received
a letter from Carlton Beyer, resident
on Island View Drive, concerning
the City's proposed ordinance on smoke detectors. He requested that staff
make copies of the letter for distribution to the other Commissioners.
CONSENT CALENDAR Re the request for time extension
for Conditional Use Permit No. 74 and
Variance No. 60, for the commercial
project at Crest and Hawthorne, Mr. Hughes asked if any work had been done
on the project.
Ms. Lavitt said the applicant worked extensively with the Geology Depart-
ment and reached agreements concerning the safety of the parking lot.
She said the building plans were finished, or nearly completed. She said
the applicant was seeking a partner for a joint venture and that it was
just a matter of money to proceed with the project.
In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Ms. Lavitt said staff was
recommending a six-month time extension instead of one year, as requested
by the applicant, in order to give the Commission the option to extend it
further at a later date, if desired.
By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously
carried (with Dr. Brown abstaining only from voting on the minutes since
he was not present at the meeting), the Consent Calendar was passed,
thereby approving the following: A) the minutes of the meeting of January
25, 1983; B) a six-month time extension for Conditional Use Permit No.
74/Variance No. 60 (to 9/24/83); C) a six-month time extension for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 12578 (to 9-24-83); and D) a two-month time
extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 13887 (to 3-23-83).
VARIANCE NO. 88 Mr. Gamble said at the last meeting
5 Martingale Drive the Commission directed staff to
Landowner/Applicant: Morin proceed with a visual assessment to
determine potential view impact, if
any, that may result by granting
the variance. Following a visit to the adjacent properties, staff deter-
mined that no significant view obstruction would occur should the applicant's
request be granted. He referred to the staff photographs which were on
display. Staff recommended that the Commission review the information
presented and, if the required findings can be made, that the Commission
direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval.
Mr. Hinchliffe re -opened the continued public hearing.
Mr. McNulty said he would maintain the same position as taken at the last
meeting and refrain from discussion and voting on this matter because of
his personal friendship with the architect.
Larry Herres, architect, 22850 Crenshaw Boulevard, #204, Torrance, said
with reference to exceptional circumstances the lot slopes up from the
street at about 1-1/2:1 and that because of that he tried to parallel the
slope and tie the addition in with the existing roof slope. He said the
lot is unique in that there are a number of mature trees and shrubs which
helps reduce any impact. He said the project would not interfere with the
views of the adjoining properties. He said the design falls within a grey
area in that he was trying to lessen the impact from the front elevation
by sloping the roof towards the driveway, therefore keeping the total
height to a minimum. He said if he turned the ridge 90 degrees it would
be 30 feet to the ridge, but that designing the project to meet the
guidelines would be more impactive.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Herres said he could lower the
pitch of the roof below what is proposed and still maintain the shake
roofs. He said the structure could have a flat roof with shingles but
would not be aesthetically pleasing. He said his client was trying to
enhance his property. He said bringing the wall back would reduce the
height by seven to nine inches.
Re preservation of substantial property right, Mr. Herres said the owner
would like to build an addition that would enhance the property and not
look like an add-on. He said it would be more detrimental in terms of
property value to conform to the Code. Re adverse impacts, he said the
views would not be obstructed and that staff indicated there would be no
effect on the public welfare. Re conforming to the goals of the General
Plan, he said that document provides for single family residences and that
speaking in terms of the profile of the structure, the present Code would
allow for a structure two and one-half feet higher on the downhill side if
the structure were not being proposed over the garage.
Mr. Hinchliffe read aloud the findings prepared by the Commission.
By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, with Mr.
McNulty abstaining, the public hearing was closed.
By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, with Mr.
McNulty abstaining, staff was directed to prepare a resolution for the next
meeting approving Variance No. 88 based upon the fact that the Commission
can make the required findings.
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 641 Mr. Putrino said the applicant was
6823 Alta Vista Drive requesting approval of a side yard
Applicant: Arcon Associates retaining wall at a height of just
Landowner: Savita Anand Bhavan over 3-1/2 feet at the west end,
gradually increasing to a height of
7-1/2 feet at the east end. He said
the maximum height allowed by Code for a side yard retaining wall is 3-1/2
feet. He said the retaining wall would support approximately 2-1/2 feet
of area and would create a patio area between the retaining wall and the
main structure. Staff recommended denial because the proposed retaining
wall did not comply with the City's Code and because the area could be
maintained in natural slope with landscaping.
2/8/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
2
411 111
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Putrino said if the retaining
wall was eliminated a natural slope could be maintained. He said the
retaining wall was necessary only to maintain the patio area. He said
behind the retaining wall was a regular garden wall. He said the applicant
had attempted to make two walls, each at 3-1/2 feet maximum in height
rather than one 7-1/2 foot wall, which also did not comply with the Code .
He said they had attempted to soften the appearance with a planter.
Hector Baylon, 424 North Vega Street, Alhambra, architect, said the patio
was to be located off the game room and family room. He said the planter
was about 30 feet long. He said the patio area would also provide light
and air into those rooms and that they would want access from both rooms.
He said it would not impact any of the neighbors and would create an
amenity for the home .
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Baylon discussed the proposed
drainage and said they could provide additional drains if necessary.
After a lengthy discussion, by motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr.
Hughes, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Grading Applica-
tion No. 641 with the nature of the retaining wall changed to be a single
wall as opposed to a split wall .
ADJOURNMENT At 9 :00 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and caried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
February 22 , 1983, at 7: 30 p.m.
2/8/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-