Loading...
PC MINS 198304120 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting April 12, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McNulty LATE ARRIVAL: McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planners Sandra Massa-Lavitt and Alice Bergquist Angus, and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd, Joseph Gamble and Dino Putri.no. COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Palos Verdes Properties requested that Item C be removed from Consent Calendar. 2. Tract 32110 be withdrawn from agenda and postponed for a few weeks. CONSENT CALENDAR Item A. Minutes of March 22, 1983 were approved as presented. Item B. Conditional Use Permit No. 26 - staff request for continuation to April 26, 1983 was approved. Item C. Tentative Parcel Map No. 14425 - (Extension) - Applicant requested that the extension be withdrawn from Consent Calendar. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously carried the Consent Calendar was approved as amended. OLD BUSINESS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15264 Dino Putrino presented the staff report Applicant/Landowner: Daniel stating that at the Planning Commission Melillo meeting on February 22, 1983 this item was continued to determine location of septic tanks, seepage pits for Lots 1 and 2; a footprint of the relocated garage, and building pad footprint for Lot 1. The proposed location of septic tanks and seepage pits on Lots 1 and 2 comply with Los Angeles County building standards and the proposed building pad footprint within buildable area of Lot 1. Staff finds that the proposed lot split complies with the City Development Code and General Plan and State Subdivision Map Act. Staff recommended approval of resolution with conditions contained in Exhibit A. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 83-6 with conditions presented in Exhibit A. GRADING NO. 643 49-1/2 Rockinghorse Road Applicant: Elmer Katinszky Landowner: Zoltan Katinsky #602X-Al2 Jonathon Shepherd stated in his staff report that on March 3, 1983 Grading No. 643 was presented to the Planning Commission for determination. At that time the Commission tabled the item and requested staff to research alternatives in relation to the length of the road, exceeding grade, Fire Code requirements. Plans were sent to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review and compliance with Fire Code. Results of review are in staff report. After review of Fire Department the results of that review were sent to the City Attorney for comment as to the City's liability. City Attorney's review is discussed in staff report. The Planning Commission has a choice of three alternatives as put forth in staff report. Mr. Shepherd stated that late this afternoon the applicant submitted a staff plan with a 17% slope access drive and corresponding retaining walls. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item until staff has time to review the alter- native. Mr. Zoltan Katinsky, landowner, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he would like to review what has taken place since October 1982. He stated that at that time they submitted plans for a single family residence which was approved and since that time have been trying to get an access made to residences. The problem with the alterna- tive is it requires two retaining walls which makes water appear to be going down some type of drain. Our solution provides one retaining wall and soft shoulder. As long as we meet fire criteria there would be no liability to the City. That criteria is 16 feet width, and provide a turnaround area of suitable size and fire hydrant. Since we are only putting in one house we would like to wait for a second house to provide 50 feet turnaround. We would like to submit 38 feet as turnaround area until the second house is built. We do not know when any other houses will be constructed. Mr. Shepherd stated he had talked with Captain Brown, who said a 20 foot width was for access to three or four houses. The applicant was in contact with Captain Brown. Captain Fred Brown, Los Angeles County Fire Department addressed the Commission. He stated that when they looked at the plans for a subdivi- sion the applicant indicated at that time that more houses would be built later. The Fire Department would like 20 feet, but with reference to the topography problem he agreed with the applicant that he can get by with 16 feet. He also said he would not think this would create any problems with fire fighting. Mr. McNulty said that assuming there are three residences built there may be a problem with parking along the driveway, and how will you get by with parked cars. Captain Brown stated that the density problem will still be there but that there is a density problem for all of the county, and we may put no parking signs along the road. Dr. Brown asked if there is a problem with fires in canyons. Captain Brown replied that the location of the fire hydrant is important. Mr. McTaggart asked about a berm -type road. Captain Brown stated the applicant is to supply 16 feet of paving and that 16 feet of paving would not impact fire vehicle. Dr. Brown asked if the Fire Department would like to have 50 feet for turnaround. Captain Brown stated that at least 32 feet was needed. Mr. Shepherd gave indication that application would give 50 feet. If there are three houses we will need 50 feet, if only one house we are okay with 38 feet. Mr. Hughes stated that in drawings there is a turn out and adjacent fire hydrant at the top of Rockinghorse, and that is the kind of turnaround required. Captain Brown felt that would have ample room, that it is a good design. The main purpose for the turnaround is, that if a fire vehicle is hooked to a fire hydrant there is enough room for another to pass. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty it was unanimously carried to table this item with direction to staff to evaluate applicant's most recent proposal. After the motion Mr. Hughes suggested that staff prepare an analysis of both approaches. How the walls look at both grades. Mr. Hughes said he would not like to approve this without looking to when three houses are built there; and would like the analysis of road for Fire Department angles for turnaround roads. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- April 12, 1983 d NEW BUSINESS SECOND UNITS Ms. Angus gave the staff report outlining the state regulations for second units, and the issues that should be addressed tonight. Dr. Brown asked about HCD's review power. Ms. Angus stated that HCD does not have the power to judge any ordinance, but must submit a report to the State Legislature by January 1, 1984. Fran Crolius, 6225 Scotmist Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, addressed the Commission stating a request that an ordinance be drafted to prohibit mobile homes as second units. Jeanette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that if the City adopted an ordinance allowing second units that it be by Conditional Use Permit. She stated that if we have to have it, we want it as gracefully as possible. Gilbert Rowe, 2444 Sunnyside Ridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he was speaking for the Sunnyside Ridge Association. The subject has come up several times and they are opposed to second units. He said that he did not realize that an ordinance could be drafted opposing second units. If we must allow units, we need something regarding density (lot size); an 11,000 square feet minimum would be a compromise. They are in favor of an ordinance not approving second units. Muriel Titzler, 3 Ginger Root, Rancho Palos Verdes, addressed the Commission saying she is against allowing second units. However, if the City does approve second units they should not block views and should provide ample parking. Second units could increase ground water if there is an inadequate sewage system. Elza Cortes, 29681 Highpoint Road, Rancho Palos Verdes (Miraleste Hills Homeowners Association), stated that she was not aware of being able to not have units. She stated that personally she was opposed to second units. If we must allow them, then the ordinance should stipulate that the building permit not be granted without neighbors' approval. Ms. Cortes stated she was concerned about fire hazard in the canyons and over home value. She asked if both houses on one lot could be sold separately. Mr. Hincliffe said they would have to be sold as one unit. Mr. Sutter Kunkel, 3271 Parkhurst Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, (Crestmount Community Association) stated he felt the same as other speakers but wanted to be positive. We have single family residences and we should restrict second units by: (1) having a public variance on each case and, (2) if you do approve second units that you do it on a lease approval. We should be positive and allow second units but it should be restricted strongly by public hearing and time limits. Perhaps a Special Use Permit could be required. Ms. Luella Wike, 29172 Oceanridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, (Mesa Homeowners) stated that she was concerned, but that she did not think the City could totally preclude second units. Ms. Wike stated that ordinances from other cities seem to include the maximum of two adults, age 60 years. She would like this included in the ordinance for Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Wike proposed the following for the ordinance: it should have a Conditional Use Permit, it should be double lot size, and it should comply with existing ordinances (i.e. view). Another suggestion is a covenant stating occupants are to be 60 years or older; proof of age must be given yearly. A Conditional Use Permit must be reviewed yearly; and second units must be a maximum of 640 square feet. Mr. Brady, 29705 Stonecrest, stated that he was against second units because they: (1) degrade the quality of houses on the hill, (2) aggravate an already bad traffic condition, and (3) he.doesn't want the State telling him what he can have. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- April 12, 1983 3 Mr. Grider, 3506 Newridge, (Vice President, Crestmont Association) stated that he is against second units. By motion of Mr. McNulty, seconded and unanimously carried, the public hearing on this item was continued to the next meeting. Recess was called at 9:20 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 9:35 P.M. GRADING NO. 649 Mr. Shepherd stated that the applicant 6894 Alta Vista Drive is proposing to create a split level Applicant: Arcon Associates house by making an eight foot vertical Landowner: Ajaib Chhabra cut across the property, fifty-two feet northerly of front property line. The front portion of property would be excavated to the approximate elevation of Alta Vista Drive. Walls and wall combinations along side property lines will range in height from four to twelve feet, and within the front setback area. The applicant is also proposing minor grading to level remainder of lot. This would create a berm with a slope of fifty percent across the rear yard and a portion of the side yard areas. Staff recommended denial because of excessive grading and that the retaining walls exceed Code requirements. Mr. Don Randall, 5315 East Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission regarding the recommendation of staff. Mr. McTaggart questioned the retaining and privacy wall. Mr. Randall stated that his client wanted a five foot high privacy wall higher than the existing grade. Dr. Brown asked that in Mr. Randall's opinion could his client build the kind of house he wanted without the grading he proposes. Mr. Randall replied that he would have to remove the lower floor on the right side. He wants to take advantage of the view and that could not be done with the garage being higher. It would not be the house his client wanted. Motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown and unanimously carried to deny Grading Permit No. 649 based on the fact that the grading was excessive, that the retaining walls are excessive in height and that there is ample room to build without this much grading. GRADING PERMIT NO. 640 Mr. Gamble gave the staff report. 6895 Alta Vista Drive Mr. Larson addressed the Commission Applicant: Gary Larson, architect and said the site is a downhill lot Landowner: Gokul Agarwalla and that the plans have been revised and the swimming pool and wood deck also have been revised to reduce the impact of the original design. The natural grade of the site is a medium slope and that the wood deck complies with the ordinance of 12 feet high. The retaining wall on the east side of driveway can be stepped and safety walls will exceed the overall height; wrought iron will be installed so impact is lessened. The idea was to create a house set back to make a rural atmosphere. They had tried to bring the driveway out of view and keep the retaining walls below natural grade. Mr. Gamble said that the Code stated that any walls within three feet of each other are continuous. Thus measured from the lowest grade to top of the highest wall. Dr. Brown stated he was concerned with the fact that this tract was developed so that only minimal grading would be necessary to develop sites. He stated that he was uncomfortable with the walls, and basically opposed to this application. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- April 12, 1983 0 0 Mr. Larson stated that the original plans exceeded the Code requirements. After revisions, which consisted of stepped walls, the walls did not exceed the Code. The problem is the guard rail on the wall exceeds the overall heights. Dr. Brown stated that even if they are stepped they are continuous. Mr. Hughes stated that he was not particularly upset by this project. The 20% is steep but that is not part of the driveway that guests use. It is only access to the garage, and that he could support a motion to approve the grading. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McNulty Grading Permit No. 640 was passed with Mr. McTaggart and Dr. Brown dissenting. GRADING PERMIT NO. 650 Applicant: Memorial Park Development Association Landowner: Green Hills Memorial Park Mr. Putrino gave the staff report, after which Dr. Brown asked staff if there was a problem with the staff's recommendation. Mr. Putrino stated that the applicant/landowner is not happy with Alterna- tive A. Mr. McTaggart asked if a guard rail along the retaining wall is required. Mr. Putrino said there was a fence along the property line, adacent to the proposed wall, and did not know if a rail would be required. Mr. Paul Iacono, 23862 South Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, addressed the Commission. He stated that they would like to accept staff's Alternative D. Green Hills feels that in a R-1 zoning the 3-1/2 foot wall does not apply to a memorial park, that they are afraid of losing the north bank. In order to stabilize this slope, they must have to use a maximum of 2:1 slope and 8 foot wall to prevent erosion. With the 3-1/2 foot requirement we will lose 2,400 square feet of land which we need for storage. Mr. Iacono then distributed a sketch of a 3-1/2 retaining wall diagram to the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Hughes asked why they did not consider the use of a 3:1 slope with a 3-1/2 foot wall instead of a 2:1 slope. Mr. Iacono said a 3-1/2 foot retaining wall would require greater square footage of the property. They are using this area for storage. Dr. Brown asked if there were other areas that they could use for storage and that he understood this will later be used for internment. Mr. Rucks, 27000 Loftview Drive, Torrance, addressed the Commission. In response to Dr. Brown, regarding storage, they are looking down the road 75 to 80 years when this storage area will be needed. They are concerned with the residential zoning. There will be a large amount of grading over the next two years. Mr. McTaggart stated since you will be grading a large area over a period of time it appears that you do need a grading permit. Ms. Hightower stated we have to deal with interim zoning. When permanent zoning is designated for this property the City will probably require a CUP so that there is an overall pian that meets our laws. Mr. Hinchliffe said that the City is working with the Eastview area to solve these problems as they come about. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty and unanimously passed to approve Grading Permit No. 650 as submitted by applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- April 12, 1983 5 411 411 CUP NO. 58 - AMENDMENT Ms. Lavitt presented the staff report, Applicant/Landowner: stating that the applicant was asking Tumanjan & Tumanjan for an amendment to alter Condition Beachview/Coastsite No. 1 to allow for detached units instead of attached units. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 58 was approved. TRACT NO. 32110 Applicant withdrew the item from the Park Place agenda requesting it to be reinstated Applicant/Landowner: Tim at the next meeting. Burrell ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded HOUSING ELEMENT by Dr. Brown and unanimously carried to forward this report to the City Council as recommended in staff report. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower stated that the City Council has set April 27 as the date for a work session with the Planning Commission to discuss private versus public streets and facility uses. At 10:50 P.M. it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- April 12 , 1983