Loading...
PC MINS 198407104 - M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 10, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Hesse Park Community Building at 29341 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: BROWN, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: McNULTY Also present were Councilmen Hinchliffe and Hughes, City Manager Donald Guluzzy, Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, City Attorney Strauss, RJA Supervisor Abbott, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Dino Putrino, Secretary Ann Brenesell The Commission and Council Subcommittee discussed the establishment of a Redevelopment Agency and the Commission's role. The Session concluded at 7:25 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. with the same commissioners present. COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF Mrs. Wike requested the deletion of JUNE 12, 1984 1 year in the 8th paragraph, page 8. MINUTES OF Mrs. Wike requested the correction on JUNE 26, 1984 page 4 to read MR. Kessling and not MRS. Kessling. She requested a correc- tion on page 4, under Marianne Kipper's statement to read: SHE SAID THE HOME HAS INGRESS AND EGRESS RIGHTS ONLY. THE ACCESS RIGHT IS EASEMENT RIGHTS. Mrs. Ortolano moved to approve the minutes of June 12 and June 26, 1984 as amended; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. #603X -Al NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE NO. 107 Assistant Planner Dino Putrino present ENGELN - the staff report. He noted that the 72 ROCKINGHORSE ROAD plan received in the packet is not accurate according to the applicant. The plan included with the packet was for a wall with a maximum height of 8.5 feet. The plan has been revised and the applicant reduced the 8.5 foot retaining wall to a maximum height of 6 feet. Mr. Putrino said upon completion of a site analysis, it is staff's opinion that the findings necessary to approve a wall in the proposed location in excess of 3.5 feet (Development Code maximum) could not be made. He discussed the proposed location of the wall on a slope greater than 35 percent and the alternatives as stated in the staff report. Staff recommended adoption of Resolution P. C. No. 84 - denying Variance No. 107. Mrs. Ortolano said she understood the applicant would be entitled to build a fence at 3-1/2 feet, but because of the pool a five foot fence is required. She asked Mr. Putrino if he considered recommending a five foot height. Mr. Putrino answered yes, if the wall did not encroach into the setback and was not constructed on a slope greater than 35%. Mrs. Ortolanc, asked how much it does encroach. Mr. Putrino stated 10 feet. Mrs. Wike discussed the 10 foot line from the curb or from the bushes. Mr. Putrino said that Rockinghorse Road shows a property line different from the curb; the curb is not the property line. Dr. Brown opened the public hearing. Daniel Engeln, 72 Rockinghorse Road, applicant, said he was confused as to where the property line is. He said from County maps, the property line begins in the middle of the street and goes around the corner. He also said he had no problem with a 3-1/2 foot wall, but because of the pool he must have a five foot wall. That leaves no room for decking. He is asking for another foot and a half. He stated his neighbors have similar walls. He disagreed regarding the 35% slope. He felt the 35% slope starts past the bush line. He said he was anxious to begin and asked for feedback from the Commission. Dr. Brown asked if he had looked at other alternatives. He asked if the wall had to be solid. Mr. Engeln said yes he considered other alternatives, but they did not fit in with the rest of his plans. -2- Planning Commission 7/10/84 #603X -A2 Mr. Von Hagen said the property line is essential. He asked how Mr. Engeln would feel if the public hearing was continued to allow time for the plans to be reviewed. Mr. Engeln said he was willing to wait if determining the property line made a difference. Dr. Brown said that the Commission should have a plan that is accurate. He moved to continue the public hearing; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown felt the key issue was whether or not to allow building on a slope greater than 35% when there was room to build elsewhere on the lot. He asked that the property line be defined. GRADING 730 - APPEAL The staff report was presented by 2809 VIA EL MIRO Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. He stated the applicants are requesting to construct an addition on nine pilings on a slope in excess of 35%. He said the project is proposed to be built at the rear of the existing house extending over the subject slope. Mr. Putrino discussed three alternatives as listed in the staff report. He discussed in depth the third alternative of redesigning the proposed pro3ect to the top of the slope. He said staff's opinion is that alternative #3 is the best alternative as it more closely resembles the proposed pr03ect and complies with the Development Code while reducing the room addition by only 100 square feet. He recommended denying the appeal to Grading No. 730 upholding staff's denial of the application. Mrs. Wike asked staff if what they were proposing was to build out back where the septic tank is. Mr. Putrino said yes. He said staff understood that the septic tank may be in the same location as the building alternative #3, but that it is not known for sure. Dr. Brown thought perhaps the septic tank could be relocated. Mrs. Ortolano asked staff if she understood correctly that they did not know where the septic tank was located. Mr. Putrino said he had received different information from the applicants. Mrs. Ortolano asked how you find out the location of the septic tank. Mr. Putrino said the Building Inspector could find out. Mrs. Ortolano asked if he had discussed the safety issue. Mr. Putrino answered no. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION 7/10/84 #603X -A3 5 Discussion continued relative to building on slopes greater than 35%, the Commission's past history in disallowing that type of building and that it is a policy of the General Plan not to do so. It was stated that it has been allowed in places where there is a vacant lot for the primary structure. Richard Gallio, 2809 Via El Miro, applicant, asked for clarification on the calculations used to determine the 35% slope. He asked if it were the total site. Dr. Brown replied they look at the site where one wishes to grade. Mr. Gallio gave a brief history of when the house was built and when they purchased it and their intentions of expansion to a three bedroom, three bath home. He felt the expansion would compare to what exists in the neighborhood and the expansion would improve its functional use. He said the first concern was with safety as well as complementing the design. Mr. Gallic, said other alternative methods were considered. The idea of building up was eliminated because of the concern of view restriction to the neighbors. The cantilevered alternative was eliminated because of the concern with the size of the addition and the foundation not being stable and also the expense. Building to the west was eliminated because it is not possible to build over a 35 foot cesspool; it is not a septic tank and it cannot be relocated. Building to the east was impractical and inconsistent with the floor plan of the house. He felt all four alternatives were not practical or realistic. He felt that there were exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Dr. Brown asked if the cesspool could be relocated. Mr. Gallic, said he did not know where the 35 foot cesspool could be sunk. Discussion ensued relative to what is considered grading. Mrs. Ortolano asked if, for the sake of discussion, staff's recommenda- tion of alternative #3 could be built. Mr. Gallic, said he did not know. The cesspool issue would have to be resolved. He would have to reevaluate reducing the project by 100 square feet relative to reducing the cost. Dr. Brown asked the applicant if he knew staff would approve a Height Variation after a view analysis was concluded and did not find cause for impairment, would that alternative be considered. - _- 11 Mr. Gallio said his main concern is with the neighbors and they would not want to cause friction. He asked if that determination could be made before he submitted structural drawings. -4- PLANNING COMMISSION 7/10/84 #603X -A4 0 Dr. Brown advised that staff simply needed elevation drawings for the determination. Mrs. Gallio, 2809 Via El Miro, applicant discussed view analysis. She said her neighbor's view is from a living room small window. She also stressed the importance of their lifestyle and the need for a deck. She felt they had a right to enjoy their property as their neighbors. Mr. Richard Martin, 2114 Paseo del mar, San Pedro, 90732, Soils Engineer registered in California and other states for 19 years. He stated his reason for being there was to help his client. He did not think the City of Rancho Palos Verdes understood soils and geology relative to a 35% slope. He said it is simply a GUIDELINE and not a hard and fast rule. The area in question, he said, was not even a problem area. He prepared reports, made tests, and analysis and concluded that the rear of the house has uncompacted fill. He recommended a foundation on this going down 10 feet deep. He said whether you build at the top of the slope or over the slope; it does not change the stability. In his opinion, pilings are not considered grading. He read from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Discussion continued. Mr. Rubin stated the City's position as did Dr. Brown. Mr. Putrino said the City is not looking at whether or not it is safe to build on a slope greater than 35%; the General Plan makes a statement that it wants to preserve these areas greater than 25% and staff deals with that through the Development Code. Dr. Brown said just moving the earth is not the only issue. Mr. Von Hagen asked if there is a way to circumvent this problem without using 9 footings in the slope. Mr. Martin said it would be structurally unsound, but it could be done. Dr. Brown felt this was a case of self-imposed hardship and a desire to expand, and they may not have the expansibility. other alternatives should be considered. Dr. Brown was not in agreement with concrete piles in the canyon. He suggested looking at the height limit aspect. He suggested continuing the hearing until other options were explored. Mrs. Ortolano asked for clarification from staff as to whether the same criteria was used on a deck as is used for a primary structure. Mr. Putrino said the procedure is the same. Mrs. Ortolano said she thought what they were saying was safety is not the concern. It is an aesthetic issue to preserve the natural beauty of the slope. She saw other ways to achieve the addition. Her personal feeling was that the addition may be too big for the lot. She thought the project could be scaled down. -5- PLANNING COMMISSION 7/10/84 #603X -A5 t� Mrs. Wike felt the project was also too large and was not sure about building on the slope. She thought the space could be moved back and the excessive walkway/deck could be changed and moved. She was concerned with the uncompacted fill. She thought the project should be reevaluated with staff and then returned to the Commission. She felt the addition would enhance enjoyment of their home. She said variances have been granted on a hill when no place else to build existed, like the Levitt project. Mr. Rubin stated that when you have a lot subdivided and created prior to the City being incorporated, with a small buildable area, construction is allowed because there is no other place and because it was created prior to the City. Mr. Von Hagen felt the problem lay in the walkway/deck. He said he would probably want the same thing to expand. He said expanding in this area seems the only logical direction. He did not feel that cantilevering would create much vibration although he is not an expert. He said that 900 square feet is not all being built over the edge; only 15-20�asc�tm e 'XY Dr. Brown moved to table the item so that the applicant can get together with staff to scale down the project, look at cantilevering, and look at the Height Variation situation and facts. It was moved by Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown said this allows the option of returning without paying additional money. Mrs. Ortolano asked when the application expires. Mr. Putrino said one year. REPORTS STAFF Dino Putrino thanked the Commission for their support and bid them goodbye. COMMISSION Mrs, Wike advised that she would be out of town the weekend of July 24 and asked that the agenda be sent to her Federal Express. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9.30 P.M. -6- PLANNING COMMISSION 7/10/84 #603X -A6 to