Loading...
PC MINS 19840214The meeting was Chambers, 30942 PRESENT: M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 14, 1984 �Z 4r-4-14- SlAy called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. 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 Putrino. COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Mrs. Wike requested a correction be made to the corrections of January 10, 1984 minutes to read: . . ."Mrs, .dike stated that it seemed one home had living quarters on a lower level. Mrs. Silva answered no. Mrs. Wike also stated several other addresses of homes that had garages on the ground floor and living quarters on the second floor. The question of concern is whether or not these are considered two-story homes in this community." Mrs. Ortolano also amended the corrections of January 10, 1984 minutes to read as follows: ..."Mrs. Hightower answered that the scale used was the Coastal Zone and the Development Code, not the specific neighborhood. The findings made were that the application conformed to the Coastal Plan and access is not impeded." Mr. McNulty moved to accept the minutes as amended; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 307 - APPEAL The staff report was presented by DR. TULMAN - APPELLANT Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. 12 SURREY LANE, r. Putrino presented the background of this appeal and stated that FOSTER/VERON- P,-PPI,ICAN ' xe3,4ht—Va-riation No. 307 is a 11 SURREY LANE,` _ _nrnnnga1 to construct a 20' 6" second story addition which was approved by the Director of Environmental Services in September 1983. The approval was appealed by Dr. Tulman and went before the Commission on November 9, 1983. He further explained that during the review of the appeal, discussion focused on the concern of the Height Variation approved in 1979. Before and after photographs were displayed, reviewed, and discussed by staff, the Commission and the appellant. Commission was advised that following the initial view analysis, the appellant voluntarily cut back his vegetation and other surrounding vegetation with consent of property owners and, in doing so, significantly increased his view—,making the potential view impact even less significant. Staff recommended denial of the appeal to Height Variation No. 307 upholding the approval of the application. Chairman Brown clarified that what was approved in 1979 would have allowed a second story at 20' extending the entire length of the home. He also asked staff the ridgeline height of the original structure. Dino Putrino answered 18 feet. There was further discussion relative to where the photographs were taken. Mr. Putrino replied they were taken from the left-hand side of the house in front of the appellant's dining room window. Dr. Leonard Tulman, 12 Surrey Lane, RPV, spoke in defense of the appeal. His issues were landscaping, his architect's drawings, and the City lights view. Dr. Tulman said the reason for cutting back the landscaping was not to increase the view but because they had landscaped their entire yard. He reiterated that the view impairment would be from his dining and living room windows. Discussion ensued relative to his architect's drawings which were done from the applicant's plans. He claimed his architect felt those plans were not realistic. Chairman Brown noted that the architect was retained by Dr. Tulman and not the applicant. Mr. Robert Armstrong, 9701 Lakewood, Downey, CA., Attorney, represented opposition to the appeal. He felt with the information provided him there were no other alternatives. He felt the proposed addition was proper utilization of the area and that the impairment is in his opinion minimal. Mr. Armstrong stated that the applicants have offered to cut or remove the large tree and by doing so there would be a significant view from across the street. He felt the appeal bordered on the frivolous. Mrs. Wike asked if the chimney would remain as is. Mr. Foster, the applicant, replied that in order to meet the Code, it would have to be extended 21 higher than the existing. Dr. Tulman addressed the Commission again and was asked by Mrs. Ortolano if he disagreed violently to anything said. Dr. Tulman referenced a letter sent to the Mayor by Judge Veron, postponing the original hearing and discussed the limited contact he has had with the applicants and stated the applicants have never -2- 2/14/84 P.C. approached him with any compromise. Chairman Brown reiterated thecentralissue is to determine.. whether the proposed addition would have� significant impairment on the view. A motion was made by Mr. Von Hagen to deny the Appeal to Height Variation No. 307 upholding the approval of the application. It was seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously. Chairman Brown advised the appellant this decision was appealable to the City Council within 15 days. VARIANCE NO. 95 The staff report of February MURDOCK 14, 1984 was presented by 26645 SHADOW WOOD DRIVE Associate Planner Steve Rubin. RANCHO PALOS VERDES He stated this was a continued item from the December 19, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. After meeting with staff and the designers, the applicant desires to resubmit the original proposal. Mr. Rubin stated that the staff report of December 13, 1983 is included and staff findings have not changed. Staff recommended that Commission adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-3 denying Variance No. 95 since all of the four mandatory findings could not be made. Staff had contacted Building and Safety, Lomita office, regarding the previous. mentioned addresses in the staff report and the investigation revealed only one permit after the City's incorporation. All other construction was done prior to incorporation. Mr. Von Hagen asked staff if any of the findings could be made. Mr. Rubin explained that one finding could be made but that it was necessary for all four findings to be made to approve a variance. Chairman Brown stated that in 1975 specific ground rules were established and cautioned adherence to the Code. The drainage ditch easement issue was discussed and its effect on this application. Mr. Rubin explained that the easement is 10' wide and stradles two properties. Mr. John Murdock, 26645 Shadow Wood Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes addressed the Commission. He felt, along with his designer, that exceptional and extraordinary circumstances exist. Relative to the previous parking objection, Mr. Murdock explained the reason for this additon is to add a larger garage to park two cars. He discussed the safety issue and whether the proposed addition would be -3- 2/14/84 P.C. unsafe. He felt currently the steep driveway is a nuisance and encourages children to use it for roller skating and bicycle riding. Mrs. Joseph C. Spurgeon, 26134 Marina Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, representing the build&r, spoke in favor of the variance. She stated she was aware that the house across the street from the Murdocks added on living area which encroached into the setback area about four or five years ago. Mrs. Spurgeon felt that the Murdock's request was valid considering the way things are in the neighborhood. She did not feel the request was unreasonable. Associate Planner Rubin indicated that his research did not reveal any building permits for garages built within this time period and of this nature. Chairman Brown felt specific findings must be made to approve a variance. Even though the existing development has similar additions, they were probably done prior to incorporation of the City and he could not support the variance. Chairman Brown moved to Adopt Resolution No. P.C. 84-3 denying Variance No. 95 since not all of the four mandatory findings can be made. It was seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed. Ayes: McNulty, Brown, Von Hagen Nays: Ortolano, Wike The applicant was advised the decision is appealable to the City Council within 15 days. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR The staff report was presented by CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Associate Planner Steve Rubin. NO. 60, VARIANCE NO. 48 He explained the Planning Commission originally approved Conditional Use Permit No. 60 and Variance No. 48 in February 1981 and this approval was for a development of approximately 58,750 square feet of professional office space to be developed in four phases. He exp.I—aiHed­tNEreason for the extension request was because the applicants now feel the economic climate i�right to proceed with this project and stated the applicants have provided staff with a revised phasing schedule. Staff recommended a two-year extension to October 1986. 1 Mrs. Wike felt the item should be tabled to a later dateXand aired her concerns relative to the vacancies around the hill , surrounding 11 areas, and possibly overdeveloping the area. 4A -t Mr. Brunning, 727 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates spoke a representative for the development. He mentioned that his present property on the hill is 1000 occupied and the proposed development already has tenant commitment. Mr. McNulty#felt the tenant occupancy issue was not relevant to the Commission. -4- 2/14/84 P.C. • A motion was made by Mr. McNulty to approve the extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 60, Variance No. 48 by amending Condition No. one, Exhibit A, Resolution P.C. 81-32. It was seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed. Ayes: Brown, McNulty, Ortolano, Von Hagen Nays: Wike Chairman Brown advised that the decision is appealable to the City Council within 15 days. APPEAL OF THE REQUIREMENT Assistant Planner Jonathan FOR A GEOLOGY REPORT TO Shepherd presented the PROCESS GRADING APPLICATION February 14, 1984 staff report. NO. 695 He explained that staff review, DAVID ENGLISH and decision are pending 2 TOP RAIL LANE submittal of a geology report by the applicant. Mr. Shepherd said Mr. English had been before the City Council and the Planning Commission to appeal the geology p report requirement for revious grading applications. The Commission asked for more clarification as to the essence of the application. Mr. Shepherd explained that Mr. English had been in front of the Council many times. He said Mr. English wants to grade on an unstable area and that the City has an injunction against him to prevent him from grading in a landslide area in the lower portion of his lot. He also explained that the applicant is requesting approval to allow the stockpiling of 49 cubic yards of soil and mulch material to beplaced adjacent to the tack room ori Mire lower portion of his property. Mr. David English 2 Top Rail, addressed the Commission and stated this was only his second time before the Commission and that the City did not have an injunction against _him and that the City already had a geology report. Chairman Brown mentioned the reason for this application was because Mr. English wished to put more than 20 cubic yards in a'sensi-Eive area Mr. English said he wished to modify the application to stockpile outside of this landslide area. There was lengthy discussion about how much of the area is in the landslide area, how many cubic yards of material to be used, how it will be distributed and where it will be distributed. Chairman stated following this discussion that it seems the application differs from the testimony being heard and he recommended that the applicant return to staff and then bring it back to the Commission if necessary. Chairman Brown moved to table the item so that the applicant can revise his application. It was seconded and passed unanimously. -5- 2/14/84 P.C. REPORTS STAFF IAC 0 ME 0 COMMISSION Mr. Von Hagen requested to attend the California Contract Cities Association meeting on March 7, 1984. Director Hightower will send in his registration. Mrs. Ortolano discussed the apparent problem of applicants not knowing when their item is on the agenda. She felt without proper noticing unnecessary misunderstandings are created. Director Hightower stated the scheduling and mailing of staff reports but staff will review any problems. ADJOURNMENT It was moved, seconded and passed to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. -6- 2/14/84 P.C. X,