Loading...
PC MINS 19840410(g4) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Hesse Park Community Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard by Vice Chairman Robert McNulty. PRESENT: MCNULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: BROWN COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Wike advised she submitted a letter to Dr. Brown for the Commission's reivew. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Von Hagen requested that Dr. Brown's name be added to the roll call vote on page 5. It was moved and carried to delay further discussion on the approval of the Consent Calendar to the end of the meeting. OLD BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Commissioner Ortolano moved to delay NO. 23 - REVISION "All this item until after hearing item VI B, Conditional Use Permit No. 23, Revision "B". It was seconded by Mrs. Wike and carried. NEW BUSINESS CONI:ITIONAL USE PERMIT The staff report was presented by NO. 71 / COASTAL PE BAIT Associate Planner Steve Ribin. He NO. 5 stated the applicant's request would TUMANJAN & TUMANJAN allow placement of sports courts into the required 50 foot front yard setbacks on Lots 3, 5, 6 & 9 of Tract 39672. The intent of the 50 foot setbacks is to protect views across Seacove. Some retaining walls and fences would be utilized. The height of the retaining walls range from 2 1/2 - 5 feet, the combined wall/fence heights would range between 9 -'and 13 feet as measured from the finished grade and all conform to normal Code requirements. Mr. Rubin discussed the display of plot plans indicating the locations of the 50 foot setback lines and the height of the court fences. Mr. Rubin stated that Coastal Permit No. 5 requires a public hearing by the Planning Commission because the development lies within the appealable area of the coastal Specific Plan District. Mr. Rubin said two f-i-n-d-ings-mu-st-b& made:--(-aY�th'�it�----ht-e—�proposed -development is in conformance with the Coastal Specific Plan; and (b) that the proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is in conformance with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Mr. Rubin referred to the lot breakdown in the staff report and gave a brief summary. He said, since the sports courts would not impact the primary view, staff's recommendation was to adopt Fesolution No. 84- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 71 Revision and Coastal Permit No. 5 with the condition that vegetation be planted adjacent to the court fences to screen them from public view and with the height of the vegetation not to exceed the height of the fences. Also, vines should be planted along the front of the courts to soften the impacts. Discussion ensued relative to issues of clarification of--T&T'-s- - previous request before the Commission, the purpose of a 50 foot setback, attempt to protect loss of views to homes across the street, and consideration of noise. The public hearing was opened. Peter Delgado, 22939 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance addressed the Commission as applicant for the project. He mentioned a similar item had been before the Commission and that this application is now in conformance with setback, side yard requirements, and height restrictions. He said the intention of the Conditional Use Permit was to avoid interfering With views on the lots across Seacove. He felt since the tennis courts are terraced they will not interfere with views. Commissioner Von Hagen aired his concerns relative to placement of tennis courts prior to the placement of the primary structure on the lots. Mr. Delgado felt placing the courts first was more appropriate,and the house could be adequately designed to fit the remainder of the property. Commissioner Ortolano asked if landscaping was a problem. Mrs. Wike reference_ d_ 1980 minutes, and_ConditionNo-. 38 of the original approval. Mr. McNulty was concerned with promoting the courts as a sales tool. Mrs. Wike moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. McNulty and carried. Discussion included the pros and cons, the General Plan encouraging tennis courts as private recreational use, the sports courts not being aesthetically pleasing, and that the ma]or structure was encumbered by approving the courts before the houses. Mrs. Wike moved to deny approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 71 -2- 4/10/84 ?1 and Coastal Permit No. 5; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. -D scussion ensued. Mr. Von Hagen withdrew his second and motion died for lack of second. Mr. Von Hagen moved that Conditional Use Permit No. 71 Revision Coastal Permit No. 5 be denied without prejudice subject to the Commission's review of each case on an individual basis when a footprint for the primary structure is submitted with the application. Seconded by Mr. McNulty. Roll Call Vote: Yeses: Von Hagen, McNulty Noes: Ortolano, Wlke� Motion failed. Mrs. Ortolano moved to continue the matter to the next Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Mr. McNulty. Motion and second were withdrawn.. Mr. Von Hagen remade his motion that Conditional Use Permit No. 71 revision Coastal Permit No. 5 be denied without prejudice subject to the Commission's review of each case on an individual basis when a footprint for the primary structure is submitted with the applica- tion. Fell Call Vote: Yeses: Ortolano, Von Hagen, McNulty Noes: Wike Mr. McNulty advised this issue is appealable to City Council within 15 days of final action. VARIANCE NO. 98 The staff report was presented by ADMIRAL RISTY Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni. He said the Variance addressed two issues; (1) encroachment.into the street side setback and (2) proposed expansion of restaurant seating capacity and subsequent increased requirements for parking spaces where a shortage of spaces already exists. Because the number of parking spaces provided in the Golden Cove Shopping Center is less than required pursuant to the Development Code, this request is non- conforming. Mr. Pedroni advised that staff conducted a survey of the parking lot, and it appears to have ample vacant spaces most days, with the exception of Fridays. He stated that Mr. Wood of the Admiral Risty also completed a survey and his figures reflected similar results. Mr. Pedronj gave a brief history of the restaurant and previous requests to enclose open deck area. Mr. McNulty opened the public hearing. There was no one requesting to speak. Mrs. Ortolano made a motion to close the public hearing; it was seconded by Mr. Von Hagen, and carried. -3- 4/10/84 3 Mrs. Ortolano moved to adopt Resolution No. 84- approving Variance No. 98 permitting the enclosure of the existing covered deck as proposed; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Mr. McNulty advised that this was an appealable issue to City Council within 15 days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 The staff report was presented by REVISION "B" Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni. The proposal is to shift the house from the approved footprint towards Palo Vista raising the ridgeline elevation; this was the main consideration. He said for Lot 14, the approved ridgeline elevation was 9 feet above the average street elevation. The proposed ridgeline elevation is 14' 8" above the average street elevation. This brings the ridgeline elevation into a consistent level with Lots 13 and 15. View analysis photos were discussed. Mr. Pedroni said he based his staff report and recommendation on "consistency" of the ridgeline elevation along Palo Vista Drive. Discussion ensued whether it was appropriate to compare Revisions A & B or whether it was necessary to discuss only Revision B at this time. Director Hightower stated it was permissable to discuss the information that is relevant to both applications. Mr. Putrino was asked to address the Commission at this time relative to Revision A. —iVlr—Putr-ino said staff looked at both applications on an individual basis, and felt Revision B had not as significant differences between the proposed and approved elevations as Revision A, which is an 8 foot difference. John Vilicich, 1622 So. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, applicant, gave a brief history of how the jfootprints�were placed originally. His main concern in designing this house was to stay away from the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South by moving the house. It was not done for view but to create a backyard. He discussed cumulative view impacts and presented an analysis; and discussion followed. Staff was asked to examine the exhibit presented by Mr. Vilicich and agreed it -was basically correct. Mr. Von Hagen moved to approve the proposed footprint change as shown on plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 23, Revision "B"; seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed. Roll Call Vote: Yeses: Ortolano, Von Hagen, McNulty Noes: Wike Mr. McNulty advised this issue is appealable to the City Council within 15 days after final action on a resolution. -4- 4/10/84 0 OLD BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 REVISION "A" 4) The staff report was presented by Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. He said the applicant is proposing a footprint change which would in turn raise the ridge elevation 8 feet higher than the ridge elevation of the approved plan for the subject lot. Mr. Putrino stated that staff completed a minor view analysis in order to determine the potential cumulative impacts. He presented pictures for review. Based on the analysis, it is staff's opinion that there would be no significant view impairment; however, the Planning Commission should note that when the height is increased in an area where view exists the natural tendency is to increase the height of surrounding development. This would create a "snowball" effect; the original design of the tract would be changed. Based on that, staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 23, Revision A. Mrs. Ortolano questioned staff relative to potential loss to side view and lots above. Mr. Putrino said it would impact V7:Ce-ws but not -significantly._ Mrs. Ortolano questioned about the "snowball" effect and lenghty discussion continued. Both analyses were compared; the differences on displays were noted and discussed. Lenthy discussion about potential impacts followed. Mr. George Zugsmith, Attorney, 3728 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach 90807, addressed the Commission representing Mr. and Mrs. Anthony DiMaggio (landowners). He gave his interpretation of the events that have occured up to this point in time. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. DiMaqqio's intention is to build a home for themselves following ' all the rules and regulations of the City. Mr. Von Hagen clarified the record that it is the applicant's responsibility to find out the conditions that have been placed on a final tract map. Those conditions are written for a specific purpose. To clarify further, the issue was tabled at a p I revious meeting so that the applicant could get together with staff to satisfactorily resolve some issues. Mrs. Ortolano moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23, Revision "A"; seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed. Roll Call Vote: Yeses: Ortolano, Von Hagen, McNulty Noes: Wike Mr. McNulty advised this item is appealable to the City Couhcil within 15 days after final action on a resolution. -5- 4/10/84 CONSENT CALENDAR Discussion continued relative to a request by Mrs. Wike for an addition to the minutes of March 27, 1984. Mr. McNulty moved to approve the minutes of March 27, 1984 with the amendment of Dr. Brown's name to be added to the roll call vote on page 5 and further to amend that Commissioner Wike has expressed an opinion to add 1 to 1 1/2 pages of typewritten recollections as to her presentation regarding the BGR line. Motion died for lack of second. Mrs. Ortolano moved to accept the minutes of March 27, 1984 with the changes regarding Dr. Brown and to insert a statement that Mrs. Wike had concern about the drainage regarding the BGR line. It was seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. The motion was amended to: "Mrs. Wike expressed concern about the BGR line with regard to impact on drainage and brought Exhibit A, Resolution 79-22, to the Commission's attention and discussion followed.' The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. REPORTS STAFF None COMMISSION Mr. Von Hagen reported on his and Mrs. Ortolano's attendance at the Trails ride sponsored by the Palos Verdes Horseman's Association and at the Peninsula Equestrian Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to 7 p.m. on April 11, 1984. -6- 4/,10/84