Loading...
PC MINS 19831109Approved by Seo tary as cortected. 12/1 3 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Adjourned Regular Meeting November 9, 1983 The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, McNulty, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: Dr. Brown Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, and Assistant Planners Jon Shepherd and Dino Putrino. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. McNulty congratulated Chairman Hinchliffe, Mr. McTaggart, and Mr. Hughes for their excellent campaign and being elected as Councilmen. Chairman Hinchliffe thanked Mr. McNulty and announced that this will be the last meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission as it is now constituted, since it will lose 3 members. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. McTaggart moved, seconded by Mr. Hughes and carried that Item D be removed from the Consent Calendar and heard at the beginning of the Agenda. Mr. McNulty moved, seconded by Mr. Hughes and carried that the Minutes of August 9, October 25, and November 8, 1983 be approved as presented. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. McTaggart advised that the reason NO. 59 - SIKAND ENGINEERING he pulled this item was that during REQUEST FOR EXTENSION the campaign he received a call from TRACT 37818 - a lady who was upset about the area below her home which is a portion of this proposed Tract; she said there had been some failing of the land that appeared to her to be a slippage. Since she didn't identify herself, he was unable to get her address and to go and look at the problem himself. If there is a problem with that land, he thought we should take every precaution and see that it is corrected geologically through additional study. Mr. Kenneth Marks with Sikand Engineering representing Palos Verdes Properties advised that he was unaware of any area where it is slipping. They have a grading plan which has been checked by the City and by the County. The only unresolved issues they have left on the grading plan are drainage issues mainly affecting Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Rivera. Mr. McTaggart asked when was the last time a representative of his engi- neering geologist made an on site inspection of the property. Mr. Marks replied he did not know the exact date. He believed two to three months ago. #6002-B14-15 There were questions on the amount of engineering work to be completed, any known problems, and the process. Mr. Monte Brower, 3838 Carson Street, Torrance, representing the applicant P. V. Properties, suggested that since there are only two or three homes that are contiguous to this parcel a field check by their geologist could make certain if there is anything. Mr. Franklyn C. Weiss, 30711 Via La Cresta, RPV, representing the La Cresta Homeowners Association, stated that they are not against the Tract per se; his concern at this point is that it has been two and a half years since the official information has been submitted and that moving 43,000 cubic yards of dirt, especially since we have learned a lot in the last three years about earth movement, should have serious consideration. Mr. Hughes moved that extension be granted to CUP #59 as requested by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: that applicant has an on- site geology inspection made with respect to and in answer to the testimony that was heard from Mr. McTaggart's concerns at this meeting and that a report be submitted that there is no slumping or slippage or that conditions or recommendations be made for repair and remedial grading to be approved by the Director of Environmental Services. The motion was seconded by Mr. McTaggart and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS GRADING APPLICATION NO. 668 ZDONEK CROWNVIEW TRACT 25367 reduced by 804 cubic yards to a the new total is associated with Assistant Planner Shepherd presented the staff report, stating that the applicant has redesigned the original proposal by bringing the garage back 10 feet and reducing the building footprint by 150 square feet. The total volume of earth removed would be new total of 1,561 cubic yards. 72% of construction for the driveway and garage. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has made revisions to the plan to significantly reduce the amount of grading, and due to the topography of the lot, the revised plan follows the intent of the grading criteria as well as possible. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve grading Application No. 668 as revised. Mr. David Johnson, 11949 Jefferson, Culver City representing the owner, stated he was available for questions. Mr. Hughes moved to approve Grading Application No. 668 as revised, Mr. McTaggart seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. GRADING APPLICATION Assistant Planner Shepherd presented NO. 685 the staff report. The Commission had MARTIN tabled the application and directed PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST staff to research the property to RETAINING WALL determine which structures do not have permits and to determine the original grades. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission (1) adopt the recommendations stated in the staff report of October 25, 1983, to deny Grading Application No. 685 for the following reasons: A. The depth of fill exceeds the permitted maximum of five feet by two and one half feet; B. The proposed plan utilized an eight foot high down slope retaining wall when a maximum three and one half foot high retaining wall is permitted; C. The plan utilized a side yard retaining wall of up to four feet in height when a maximum three and one half foot high retaining wall is permitted, and (2) Direct applicant to apply for proper permits, for the other structures without permits, under Code enforcement action. PLANNING COMMISSION -2- 11/9/83 #6002-B16-17 s Mr. McTaggart asked if staff is satisfied that in terms of looking through the records that the items mentioned in the staff report are the only which do not have permits. Mr. Shepherd advised that the review did not show permits for the spa and for the trellis work; the aerial survey that was done in 1976 verified some of the materials and structures that were there previously and should have permits. Mr. John Martin, 27865 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes advised that he has with him a copy of an architect's plans that he engaged for the design of the trellis. He did build this trellis without obtaining a permit. He did so because he was ignorant of the fact that this project required one. The spa that was mentioned was purchased from a local company, the California Cooperage, in Torrance. He bought that as a kit and installed it again himself, and again without a permit, ignorant of the fact that it required one. The Grading Permit excedes the technical parts of the Code and he understood that. If the application is denied, he assumes he will have to take the building down. If he does that, that still leaves one important problem left for him and his neighbors; that neither will have sufficient privacy. Speaking in opposition were Don Wells, 27879 Palos Verdes Drive East, and Mr. Willis Bowman, 27649 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hughes asked if they choose to take the staff recommendation and deny this Grading Application, what are the options for the situation? Director Hightower replied that the applicant Ore would have a right to appeal to Council first. Otherwise staff would give him a reasonable time to initiate work for removal of the structures and restoration to the way it was. If not initiated it would go to the District Attorney. Mrs. Wells, 27879 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes stated she did not know what plants could be put there that would grow tall enough soon. Mr. McTaggart moved that the Planning Commission deny Grading Application No. 685 for the reasons shown in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe and unanimously passed. Chairman Hinchliffe advised that the applicant has a right to appeal with- in 15 days to the City Council. An option available to the applicant is to come back with another grading application that perhaps incorporates some additional work with respect to the existing structure and the ex- isting deck that may bring this into conformance with the Code. Mr. Hughes moved that they direct the applicant, with the assistance of the Planning staff, to seek proper permits for the other structures on the site that do not yet have building permits. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. RECESS NEW BUSINESS HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 307 - APPEAL FOSTER-VERNON ADDITION has been approved extend out from an After completing a properties, it was 16' high would not properties. Staff which would uphold Chairman Hinchliffe called for a short recess at 8:40 P.M. and re- convened at 8:45 P.M. Assistant Planner Dino Putrino v presented the staff report, stating that the appellant is requesting a denial of Height Variation No. 307, an addition which exceeds the sixteen foot height limitation. The project at a maximum height of 20'-6". This addition would existing ridge, over the existing single family residence. view analysis from No. 12 Surrey Land and other nearby determined that a view impairment for the portion over significantly impair the primary view from these recommends denial of appeal to Height Variation No. 307 approval of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION -3- 11/9/83 AAnn7_u99-91 3 Dr. Leonard Tulman, 12 Surrey Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes stated that he requested that this Appeal be granted because the granting of the Variation was on the basis of vegetation in front of a window which partially obstructed the view. The vegetation no longer exists and he would like to submit pictures in his support. The existing roof line from which the ridge is to extend was built on a first Variance granted four years ago. He lost a part of his view because of that. At night the only view he has is City lights and you can see from some of the pictures his loss is of 30-40% and surely that must be considered a significant loss. Chairman Hinchliffe asked if the staff has had an opportunity to review the photos? Mr. Putrino replied no. Chairman Hinchliffe asked if the staff was aware of any prior change to the ridgeline of the house in question? Mr. Putrino replied that there was a Height Variation approved in the 1979 and they did not build all the way across, they only completed a part. The original Height Variation which was granted would have allowed a ridge - line as high as the one that is being requested now. Mr. Tulman stated that at the time of the original application, he initially objected but he weighed having a good relationship with the neighbor against losing a part of his view and decided he would rather be on good terms with the neighbor and give up part of his view at that time. But the fact is that it is not the same applicant who is asking for a renewal of his original request. It is somebody new. Mr. Edwin H. Fourt, 20 Surrey Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated he was speaking against granting the Height Variation. It was going up 22-1/2 feet over a limit of 16 feet, but that did not tell the whole story because these elevation views do not tell the whole story. When it is all completed, you realize the extension outward from the viewer obscures more and more of the view as well as upward. Mr. Frank Bescoby, 19 Surrey Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he would also like to support Mr. Tulman and Mr. Fourt in their objection to the Height Variation. Most of the people along the street have purchased their home because of the excellent view situation on that portion of the hill and it is particularly significant at night. Ruth Bescoby, 19 Surrey Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, asked why do you grant a Variance? If you have a height limitation of 16 feet, why grant this higher footage when people are objecting to that. Chairman Hinchliffe advised her of the Code and the process. Mr. Hughes stated that Mr. Tulman said in this case this was his exact view and yet this photograph shows it as significantly larger. Mr. Tulman stated that that was from the diningroom standing back with a camera, and this was taken from the livingroom and from this view JVha0e lost at least 1/3 of the view. Mr. Bescoby of 19 Surry Lane made the suggestion that when the staff comes to further evaluate the photographs that they do so at night because that is one of the significant views and values of the property on Surry Lane. Mr. McNulty advised that he had obtained a variation on his property through the same process. I Director Hightower commented that staff is fully cognizant of night views. However, the City looks at the day views, which is the only time you can see a flag identifying what the height is going to be. PLANNING COMMISSION -4- 11/9/83 #6002-B24-25 Mr. McTaggart asked if there was no opportunity of expansion of this house without raising the roof? Director Hightower advised that there is a criteria in the Code about minimizing but that doesn't necessarily mean alternative building patterns. That is not a criteria. Chairman Hinchliffe asked to back up for a minute to see if there is any interest on trying to view this application on its merit this evening, putting aside what may or may not have taken place in the past or have staff bring back more information. The Commission agreed more information was necessary. Mr. Hughes stated, based on the information received tonight, based on the information that we have had relating to past applications for this site, and the fact that the proposed ridgeline for Height Variation No. 307 is precisely the same as the ridgeline that has been previously approved, he can only find that, based upon photographs that were submitted, there is not significant view impairment He moved denial of the Appeal, and Mr. Hinchliffe seconded the motion; it died for lack of a majority vote. Mr. McTaggart moved that this matter be returned to the next Planning Commission's agenda and direct the applicant to review alternatives. If the applicant, who wants this height change on his property, can reasonably show he has no other way to go then to impair the view of his neighbor, he thought that a different question. Then it is totally down to the question of significance. Mr. seconded, and the motion passed on a three to one vote.e- X,,._9jV1 Chairman Hinchliffe advised that the people can return when the new Planning Commission will have to deal with this item in a fair and equitable manner and see what the decision is at that time. Mr. Tulman thanked the Commission and stated that he would like to cooperate in any further photos that may be taken from within his house. Director Hightower advised that photos are taken from outside. CONDITIONAL USE Assistant Planner Shepherd presented PERMIT NO. 33 - the staff and stated that the applicant REVISION D is proposing to construct a split-level NAYLOR house on Lot No. 10. The ridgeline will TRACT 32110 not exceed the approved ridge elevation of 1,181, however, the applicant is pro- posing a tower set over the entry that would rise approximately 5 feet above the approved ridge elevation. The applicant is also proposing to exceed the approved building footprint as discussed under Conditions in the staff report. A letter of concern has been received by staff from the landowners of Lot No. 9 which were granted CUP 33, Revision A. Staff is of the opinion there are three alternative actions the Planning Commission should consider. These are: (1) Approve the application with the condition that the tower is removed. (2) Deny the application. (3) Table the item and require the applicant to revise the plans to bring the proposal closer into compliance with the approved building footprint. Staff would like to add that late this afternoon the applicant submitted a revised plan that was described to staff as a compromise between the owners of Lot 10 and 9. Staff recommended Alternative "3". Mr. Roy Bayer, 1455 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 250, Torrance, representing the applicant, stated when his client bought this lot he had determined that his needs for the house could not be met by the approved footprint. So they worked out the plan with the enclosed cloister with the swimming pool in it for the needs of the client. They found out, subsequent to that, that there were some objections by the lot owners next door and they spent some time trying to move the footprint of the house around to reduce those PLANNING COMMISSION -5- 11/9/83 #603X -B26-27 objections. This is what the revised drawing that was submitted this after- noon does. As far as the tower is concerned, that is no problem; it can be removed. Mr. Barry Rodoveller, 813 Anita, Redondo Beach, stated that when his wife and he purchased the lot and built the house, they were not aware of any changed plans for adjacent lots and they placed their house on the lot with the approved footprints in mind. The way Mr. Naylor's house was originally proposed, the way it projects out on the lot, is right in his view. They met with Tim Burrell and the architect and if they put their house in the new position, 15 feet back and 10 feet over, in the spirit of compromise he and his wife are willing to accept some loss of view as long as it is not significant. The only other concern he has is if there is a fence built there. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, stated he thought they now have something that will solve most of the problems. Mr. Hinchliffe asked what was staff's reaction to the revised approach on this? Director Hightower advised that staff had not had much chance to review it. Mr. Hughes asked Director Hightower if staff wanted to react to it now and try to deal with it with this Planning Commission or do they want to review the matter with a new Commission? Director Hightower advised that as far as the staff is concerned it did not have any particular problems with the revision, but were not aware of any agreement. If the neighbors are happy and they can come to that agreement, it casts a different light on it. The City really has nothing to do with that agreement between property owners, however. Mr. Hughes moved they approve the revised plan and direct staff to look favorably upon a Minor Exception Permit. The motion was seconded by Mr. McTaggart. Director Hightower stated that this requires a resolution. Normally staff brings a resolution back at the next meeting. She requested that providing that the Chairman find that the resolution adequately reflects the motion, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the resolution while he is still Chairman. Mr. Hughes so amended his motion and the second concurred. The motion was passed unanimously Chairman Hinchliffe stated they can appeal the decision within 15 days. REPORTS 11Z ADJOURNMENT It was agreed there would be no meeting November 22, 1983. It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was Passed unani- mously and the Meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION -6- 11/9/83 #603X -B28