Loading...
PC MINS 19840228MINUTES City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 28, 1984 The meeting was called to 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, Assistant Planners Jonathan Shepherd and Dino Putrino. COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Mrs. Wike noted a correction to the minutes of February 14, 1984 on page 4, paragraph 8, to read: ..."should be tabled to a later date until the Commission could review the Rolling Hills Estates report analyzing the available vacancies of office space on the Peninsula." Dr. Brown requested an addition to the last paragraph on Page 4 to read: "Mr. McNulty and Mr. Von Hagen..." OLD BUSINESS PARCEL MAP 15519 R.D. Pierson 2816 Colt Road 2 Lot Subdivision foot access should extend to within 260 The staff report was presented by Assistant Planner Jonathan Shepherd. He noted a correction to staff report of 2/28/84 on page 4, paragraph 2 to read: "the twenty (20) feet." Mr. Shepherd discussed the background of this item and mentioned this had been before the Commission on May 24, 1983. It was tabled in order to obtain additional information from the Fire Department regarding review of the Parcel Map and to receive information from the City Engineer regarding the soils and engineering report. Mr. Shepherd stated the appliant wishes to divide the lot into two parcels. This would increase Lot 1 from 40,000 to 41,000 square feet and Lot 2 would decrease from 49,700 to 49,420. The total average slope on the lot is approximately 460. The surrounding area is zoned RS -2, single family homes. The lots are from 1/2 acre to acre lots. There is open space hazard and a natural water course along the south boundary of the lot. There is a natural overlay district in the same area. With the current condition of the lot, access is from private streets. The drawings were discussed. Mr. Shepherd further stated that the applicant is proposing to split the lot and the access would remain at a 23% slope. Part of the access would be widened to 201 width. He is also proposing to pave with an all weather paving surface, create a fire access turnaround, and install a fire hydrant. Mr. Shepherd discussed the two alternatives listed in the Soils/ Engineering Report to stabilize and create more suitable buildable area. The City Engineer recommended that one of the three alternatives be incorporated into the building and grading plans. Staff recommended three amendments to the Conditions of Approval; numbers 17, 21 and 24, to be amended to include installation of fire hydrant prior to approval of final map, widening the access strip prior to approval of the final map, and resurfacing the entire access lane prior to the final map. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and is of the opinion that with the proper conditions of approval, the existing conditions would be greatly improved. Thus, staff recommended approval of the resolution Tentative Parcel Map 15519, with Conditions as stated in Exhibit A and as amended. I Dr. Brown asked about the problem of two addresses and how it was resolved. Jonathan Shepherd said the applicant was ordered to remove the kitchen facility; the property was inspected and no kitchen facility existed. Dr. Brown asked if the existing lot was in existence prior to the City's incorporation. Assistant Planner.,Shepherd explained the lots were divided by Deed division prior to City incorporation--anO,-t-hat-staff--had issued Certificatias of Compliance. The amount of grading, views, vegetation, and requirements were discussed. Chairman Brown asked for an explanation for the change of feeling regarding the geology problem. Assistant Planner Shepherd said after speaking with the geologist there apparently wasn't enough emphasis in the first report toward buildable location; but the second report submitted discussed extensively two alterna- tive ways to put a house on the slope. Mrs. Ortolano referred to the Development Code 16.20.030 - Private Streets and Alleys. She asked if any private maintenance agreements existed. Mr. Shepherd did not know of any. Mrs. Ortolano asked if staff considered requiring any maintenance agreement as part of the conditions of the lot split. -2- � I P.C. 2/28/84 V_ Mr. Shepherd said Planning Commission could add this as a condition of approval. Dr. Brown stated that the Commission would technically be approving the Parcel Map and not the Grading Plan. The applicant would still have - to come to the Planning Commission if it was more -than 1,000 cubic yards. Director Hightower stated if the Commission approved the Parcel Map, that implies with its conditions allowing the access way to be constructed requiring the retaining wall. Mr. Von Hagen aired his concern about the emergency vehicle access, the composition of surfacing, and the width of the road from Colt Road. Questions were raised relative to easement requirements. Mr. Shepherd said the map shows 16' of easement. There may be a problem regarding obtaining easement rights to widen the street because of the first three properties off Colt Road are separately owned; the remaining lots are-owned'by the applicant. Dr. Brown said the portion that needs to be widened is the portion the applicant owns. Mr. Pierson, 2822 Colt Road, spoke in favor of the lot split. He stated his intentions and willingness to conform to the Fire Depar ment's requirements. Chairman Brown raised concern over the-slope,of the road. Mr. Pierson said there is no way to change the slope of the existing road. Mr. Pierson was asked if he was aware of easements. He said they went to the Building Department on the original lot split, 30 years ago, and the easements were 161 easements as shown on the map. He felt certain the three houses above his property would be willing to have him pave a 201 road, if needed. Mrs. Ortolano wanted on the record that his information was different than what was given to her. Mr. Joe Salmen, F.J. Salmen & Associates, 1924 South Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach spoke as engineer for the applicant. He stated he was a Civil Engineer (#12184), licensed in 1948. He was asked by the Commission if the cubic yards of grading would be much over 1,000. He answered he did not think it would exceed 1,000 yards. The grading would be a matter of moving the existing dirt, not export. Mr. Donald Brandmeyer, 2247 Sparta Road, spoke in opposition to the Parcel Map. He stated there are earlier letters of objection on file with the Environmental Services Department. He felt strongly that a fire hazard still exists. -3- P.C. 2/28/84 Chairman Brown asked if he ob3ected to development occuring within Code and parameters that are governed and monitored. Would not widening of - the road providing for turnaround and access for fire trucks ameliorate e Mr. McNulty moved to approve Resolution P.C. 84-4 approving the Tentative Parcel Map with the conditions stated in Exhibit A, as amended and with one additional amendment that Mr. Pierson must obtain written permission granting 201 easements over the ad3acent properties that would touch Clotilda Road all the way to Colt Road thus ensuring a 201 easement throughout the entire property. Motion died for lack of second. Mrs. Ortolano, moved to deny the application. She asked staff to include in the Resolution language about the fact that the proposed grading would significantly and adversely affect the surrounding properties. It was seconded by Mrs. Wike. The motion passed on a roll call vote, —4 -to -1-:- Ayes: Brown, Ortolano, Wike, Von Hagen, Nays: McNulty. Dr. --Brown stated this is not an appealable issue until final action is taken by the Planning Commission. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2752 DEAN MOON - APPLICANT MR. & MRS. MONTGOMERY - LANDOWNER He stated that on August 10, 1982, the the allowable uses outside the BGR line and up to three foot maximum retaining The staff report was presented by Jonathan Shepherd. He stated the applicant is proposing a patio with a maximum 3' high wall outside the BGR line of Tract 31617. Planning Commission interpreted, and included at grading slabs walls. Staff recommended that Commission approve Site Plan Review No. 2752 -to allow a patio slab and a three foot high maximum retaining wall to be built outside the BGR line. Dr. Brown moved to approved SPR 2752 to allow patio slab and maximum 31 high wall to be built outside the BGR line. It was seconded by Mrs .--D-rto-]:anc and passTc-d-urrarrimousty--\ Dr. Brown felt it important for the record to reflect that the Commission looked at this item carefully. The message is clear that this is not precedent setting and there is no indication that it would approve a pool also. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 33 REVISION F BURRELL, LTD. - APPLICANT/LANDOWNER LOT 1, TRACT 32110, 29131 CRENSHAW BUILDING FOOTPRINT CHANGE elevation of 1186 feet. -4- The staff report was presented by Dino Putrino. He stated that the proposed footprint would be approximtely 900 square feet less than the approved footprint, and the proposed ridgeline would not exceed the approved ridgeline P.C. 2/28/84 The proposed footprint would be located closer to Crenshaw Boulevard than the approved one so as to create a larger flat rear yard area. Staff recommended that Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 84-4 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 33, Revision F. Mr. Burrell, applicant/landowner.addressed the Commission and reiterated his reasons for the building footprint change. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt P.C. 84-4 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 33, Revision F. Seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown stated that the action is appealable to City Council within 15 days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 The staff report was presented REVISION A by Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. VILLICICH APPLICANT He said the proposed footprint DIMAGGIO LANDOWNER would be closer to Palo Vista 3444 Palo Vista Drive Drive than the approved as to create BUILDING FOOTPRINT CHANGE a larger rear yard area. This COULD have a greater view obstruction to the approved potential development across Palo Vista Drive (upper portion). He felt this could cause a significant impact should all these developments be designed similarly to the proposed project, increasing ridgeline elevations. The proposed footprint shows that the house is approxiamtely 81 higher than the approved. Although the project does conform to standards of development, staff is of the opinion that a cumulative effect of the potential development on the lower south side of Palo Vista could cause a significant impact. It would also change the appearance from the street. Mr. Putrino clarified that staff's recommendation is based on a calculated view analysis not a field analysis. Joan Ortolano stated her concerns about the 8 foot height increase. Mr. Vilicich addressed the Commission as architect/designer for the DiMaggios. He stated his position and reason for designing this house and discussed his analysis of view impacts. Mr. Vilichich indicated that if the original applicant for this subdivision could have built the homes as a group pursuant to the drawings and footprints it might have worked, but now that they are being developed individually it causes grading problems. Discussion continued relative to cumulative effect. Mrs. DiMaggio, 1618 Mira Costa Street, spoke to the Commission and stated her reasons why the height is the way it is. She said when they purchased the lot, she went to Mr. Vilicich and worked with him within the limits and regulations and designed the house for the reasons the architect stated because of the slope in the driveway and because with two small children she wanted yard area. The house was designed without being told about the restrictions. She expressed her --s �rl�r�i�E�e�that the request was denied by staff. �, tl -5- P.C. 2/28/84 Chairman Brown referenced "buyer beware" and cited an earlier example. When the tract map was approved, there were conditions set and recorded; this tract was approved with precisely what is shown, footprints delineated and building sites delineated. Dr. Brown moved to table the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 23, Revision A to allow staff and Mr. Vilicich to resolve the assumptions and issues in question. It was seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously. STAFF Director Hightower reminded the Commission that the next meeting will be held at Hesse Park. She also advised there will be a Parks and Recreation Meeting on March 8 for public input. COMMISSION Dr. Brown reported on his meeting with the Mayor. The Commission will be notified of the Town Hall meetings March 14 and March 29 at Datson Junior High and Hesse Park. He also mentioned the dedication of Hesse Park on March 24. Dr. Brown discussed the use of the City Attorney. He stated the Chairman could call him for questions but first the Director of Environmental Services should be notified. There will be a joint meeting between Planning Commission and City Council on Trails Plan. ADJOURNMENT Mr. McNulty moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. and seconded --by Mrs. Wike. -6- P.C. 2/28/84