Loading...
PC MINS 19831213i Of M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 13, 1983 SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS Before meeting was called to order, Director Hightower swore in the new members; Mrs. Ortolano, Mrs. Wike, and Mr. Von Hagen. The meeting was called order --at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Brown, McNulty, Ortolano, Von Hagen, Wike Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner- Steve Rubin, and Assistant Planners, Jonathan Shepherd and Dino P'Utrino. COMMUNICATIONS None SECRETARY TO COMMISSION For the information of the new Commissioners, Director Hightower explained that because of the lack of members who attended the last Planning Commission meeting, she would have to approve the minutes submitted from the November 9, 1983 meeting, with the correction on page 5 to read: "seconded by Mr. McNulty,". SELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN Chairman Brown advised the Commission of the need for a Vice Chairman Even though this item is not 'on the evening's agenda, it is necessary. Mr. McNulty was nominated by Chairman Brown, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE 94 - PUBLIC HEARING The staff report was presented by JOHNSTON, 6613 VIA SIENA Associate Planner- Steve Rubin. 61 WALL WITHIN SETBACK Staff suggested that additional information be provided to properly evaluate this proposal. Alternatives would be discussed with applicants. and they have agreed to continue this item until next meeting. Staff recommended that the Commission open and continue the public hearing for Variance No. 94 to the January 10, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. McNulty moved that the staff recommendation be accepted, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. CUP 33 - REVISION E Director Hightower requested that BURRELL LIMITED this item be placed at the end of BURRELL LANE - the agenda since the applicant LOT 8, TRACT 32110 would be late. VARIANCE 95 - PUBLIC HEARING The staff report was presented by MURDOCKF 26645 SHADOW WOOD Associate Planner 'Steve Rubin. DRIVE - ADDITION TO FRONT He explained the applicant's SETBACK request for approval to construct a garage addit!nm_a_t_2L_6_45 Shadow Wood Drive which would encroach into the required !20 foot front set- back 5 feet 9 inches'- reducing the setback to 1 14 feet 31n�cheii.__ ZA Photographs of the property were made available to the Commissioners. Steve Rubin stated that the Murdocks desire to utilize their property like other residences on the street; there are several houses on the street with direct access garages but those structures were built prior to the 1975 Code. All new construction has been set back a minimum of 20 feet. The 20 foot setback was established to provide and maintain openness and to provide space for vehicles to be parked off the right-of-way. Staff has suggested alternative solutions to the Murdocks. Staff recommended the Commission adopt the Resolution denying Variance No. 95. Mrs. Ortolano questioned staff regarding the neighborhood pattern. She cited five residences that have less than 20 foot setbacks. Mr. Rubin responded that they were built before 1975 according to records. I---------- The public hearinq was opened by Chairman Brown. Mr. John Murdock, 26645 Shadow Wood Drive, Applicant, addressed the Commission. Material relative to his application was distributed to Commission and staff members for review. Chairman Brown asked about the feasibility of placing the garage on the rear of the property with a long driveway. Mr. Murdock stated his"M-ain objective was to have a useable twn-car garage and to increase the family living area as well as add a den. Although the garage meets the code, it is a bare minimum size. An alternative is to put one car in the garage and one on the street. Relative to the alternative is an easement for a storm the garage to the front of due to the loss of windows. He felt there were a number variance. The storm drain is an exception because of on the lot. There would,be He acknowledged the problem but insisted he was looking of buildinq the garage in the back, there drain on that side. Relative to attaching the house, he would lose an entire room, of exceptional circumstances to allow the precludes the garage in rear and his house its floor plan and location of the house no material detriment to the public. of the cars overhanging on the sidewalk for a quality improvement. Mr. McNulty pointed out that since the City has been incorporated — there have not been any other variances granted or minor exception,! permits of this sort in this area. This matter was the first. Barry Isakson, 217 W. 12th Street, #12, San Pedro, spoke on behalf of the Murdocks. He had prepared the drawings for the applicants and felt this was a recurring problem with small houses. moving the garage against the house can be done, but it would be to the detriment of the interior of the house. Mr. McNulty asked if a second story was considered. Mr. Isakson sairl-ves,--but-it would involve major changes; there would be a 50% increase in cost. Mr. Jack Simonton, 26644 Shadow Wood, spoke in favor of the application. He had added on to his property in February 1975. iThe public hearing was closed by Chairman Brown. Mr. McNulty raised several points: (1) this is the first request in this area to come before the Commission, (2) there are many houses remaining that have not added on and (3) if we allow it for one, it will set a trend. -2- 12/13/83 Chairman Brown stated there are\findincg that_must__i-g mem and he did not feel there are any -P Atonal or extraordinarv.__c.ircumtances. The issue before the Commission is not-th tfof-economics but rather to uphold the Code. He could not make findings for the Variance. Mrs. Ortolano favored granting the Variance because it would not be materiallv detrimental to the public welfare and Mr. Murdock was also very_ concerned about the cars being an obstruction in the driveway,---..... Mrs. Wike- was concerned about setting a precedent and asked how many residences remained without additions. Mr. McNulty stated about 50% remain. _ Mr. Von Hagen was concerned with the safety factor. and the many children in the area. The street is narrow and it becomes a safety factor. Chairman Brown moved to adopt Resolution zP.C. No. 83_-18 denvina Variance No. 95 based on findings of staff_r_en-oxo.i, seconded by Mrs`. Wike. '3 noes Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Ortolano, Mr. Von�Hagen and 2 yeses, Dr. Brown anA Mrs. Wike. Mr. McNulty moved to reopen and continue the public hearing to January 24, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. Four to one to reopen. Dr. Brown advised the Murdocks that the action allowed them to review the alternatives. CUP. NO. 71 - REVISION, The staff report was presented PUBLIC HEARING - COASTAL PERMIT by Jonathan Shepherd, Assistant NO. 4, TUMANJAN & TUMANJAN Planner. The applicant is LOT 6, TRACT 39672, TENNIS proposing to construct a tennis COURT court to encroach forty (40) feet into the required fifty (50) foot yard setback on Lot 6 of Tract 39672. The tennis court would extend ten feet from the front property line. The critical point to consider is that the reamining buildable area would be -only 50' in depth. Staff is of the opinion that there are four issues to be considered: (1) 40' encroachment into 50' setback, (2) 10' fecreation wall/fence withing the 20' front setback, (3) 14' recreation wall/fence in a 10' side yard setback, (4) remaining buildable area. Staff discussed two alternatives: (1) move the tennis court 20' from property line but this would resultin further �-reduction of buildable area and, (2) a paddle tennis court uLignt- ne placed closer to the 50' setback line and increase the remaining buildable area to 62". There were three alternative actions: (1) Deny the application, (2) Approve the application with condition that a Variance is approved for the wall/fence height within the front and side yard setback area, and (3) Table the application for revisions. Staff recommended Alternative #3 - table the action. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Brown. Mr. Peter A. Delgado, 22939 Hawthorne Boulevard, #300, Torrance, Director of Construction for the project, stated the purpose is to see what type of house can be placed on the site after first establishing whether the tennis court can be placed on the property. The idea is to develop a tract of homes with pools, tennis courts, Jacuzzis. In his opinion the impact would be a minimal view obstruction. Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing , seconded by Mrs, Ortolano, and unanimously approved. -3- 12/13/83 Chairman Brown stated the 501 setbacks were done for a reson; view impairment. It was moved by Mr. McNulty, seconded by Dr. Brown, and passed unanimously to deny Conditional Use Permit 71 - Revision and Coastal Permit No. 4. Dr. Brown advised Mr. Delgado that he had the right to appeal the decision to City Council within 15 days. HEIGHT VARIATION 310 --APPEAL' The staff report was presented SINCLAIR � V�—VIA SUBtbA by Assistant Planner Jonathan 2ND STORY ADDITION Shepherd. He explained the application for a 2nd story 'Addition to the southeastern portion of the existing two-story �structure. The addition would not extend beyond the existinq__ridge- _ line and the approved building hbighf or nineteen(19) feet was measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040, D,3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Staff recommended dismissal of the Appeal of Height Variance 310 and to ,unhnlrl o -F -=t ­_he -application. �� - ---- — - Mr. Von Hagen requested that -the staff report be corrected to reflect the correct address of Mrs. Harlow at 9 Via Subida and not 4. Discussion was held on which places had been visited to determine whether or not there was view impairment. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Brown. Mr. Keith Luther, 29906 Knollview Drive, spoke in favor of the Appeal. He presented pictures showing an aerial view and additional views. The issue with him and all othe other residents is over the meaning of "significant". He presented a petition to the Commission signed by the residents in objection. Mr. Luther was asked by Mrs. Ortolano what he considered his primary view and he answered, "Everything". Mrs. Jo Harlow, 9 Via Subida, addressed the Commission and advised them that her home was purchased in 1968 and they chose their lot because of the view primarily. In her opinion, the addition would impair her view; there would be financial loss to her because of the obstruction of view. Chairman Brown asked Mrs. Harlow if she was in agreement with the staff photos taken and if they clearly represented her view. Mrs. Harlow stated they did. Chairman Brown reasssured the appellants that the Commission is in fact concerned about the portion of impairment but that natural vegetation does play a part in it also. Mrs. Ortolano asked what view in the house was primary and Mrs. Harlow answered the living room, dining room, kitchen and family room; the east side of the house. )X,O, xt-r� � Azlr D*–.-4�r n requested that Mrs. Harlow be more specific in describing the percentage impaired. Mrs. Harlow answered 45-50%. Gwen Sandvick, 5 Via Subida, stated her house is different from the others, with this approval, she feels she would lose the entire view of Peck Park. She felt she should lose no view. -4- 12/13/83 60 Jobe MAgdesil, 10 Via Subida, stated the Height Variation is not 4 problem for him; any addition at all, even if it met the Code, would have some impairment. Dr. Brown reiterated what constituted a view lot. Charles Jones, 29740 Knollview Drive, stated that he was not personally affected by the appeal. He was simply there because of hi ' s friends, the Luthers, and to attest to the loss and obstruction'of view that would occur. Richard Sinclair, 4 Via Subida, applicant, explained what he was trying to accomplish with the expansion. He had visited other homes. He stated concern about the othersviewst However, his objectives were: (1) the present family room has no view and this expansion would bring the family living area to the second floor, (2) to develop added living quarters in the home. He pointed out that the difference is only three feet. Essentially, the purpose of the application was to get the new roofline in line with the existing. RECESS Chairman Brown called for a short recess:at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Dr. Brown left -the meeting; Mr. McNulty, Vice Chairman, chaired the meeting, The Commission reviewed the photos. Mrs. Ortolano, requested Mrs. Hightower to define what is considered primary view in the view analysis and she did so. Mr. McNulty advised that this issue is over a 3' variation. The owners could legally erect a two-story structure 16 feet high. That still would impair some views. He cautioned the Commission to keep this in mind. A motion was made by Mr. Von Hagen to dismiss the Appeal of Height Variation No. 310 and to uphold the approval of the application. It was, seconded by Mrs. Ortolano, and the motion carried three to one. (Mrs. Wike dissenting) Mr. McNulty advised the appellants that they have 15 days in which to appeal the decision to the Council. CUP 33 - REVISION E The staff report was presented BURRELL LIMITED by Assistant PlannerF-Dino BURRELL LANE Putrino. He stated the reason LOT 8, TRACT 32110 for this action was to change the building footprint and recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution P.C. No. 83-18 which would approve Revision E. Mr. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, spoke on his behalf. He stated that this is not a first application and that a letter stating that the neighbor had no object had been filed with the Department of Environmental Services. Vice Chairman McNulty asked staff if it was necessary to notify surrounding home owners. Director Hightower replied no. Mrs. Ortolano moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 83-18, seconded by Mrs. Wike, and passed unanimously. REPORTS Staff Director Hightower mentioned to the Commission that there were a few duplicate pages in the Development Code given to them and the problem is being rectified. -5- 112(13/83 1 11 D#ec-tQT'H'Ightower requested a convenient time for the staff and the. C onq.Xs,p,son to meet in January for a workshop. The time Kas, tentatively set for Tuesday, January 3, 1984 with an e of January 6. Iternati-ye d4,t Director Hightower will follow up with a memo to that effect. AWOUR-MgNT Tt was moved, seconded, and passed unanimously that the meeting be adjourned at 10:25 p.m. a M. 12/13/83 tP