Loading...
PC MINS 19840828(0,I) M I N U t E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 28, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. at the Hesse Park Community Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: BROWN, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: McNULTY Also present were Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Greg Fuz, Secretary Ann Brenesell and Senior Planner Ann Negendank. COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 84-23 - Ms. Jan Konzak addressed the Commission. APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE She inquired about Condition #2 of PERMIT #91, PALOS VERDES Exhibit A and asked whether other institu- SCHOOL DISTRICT tional and non -institutional organizations are subject to providing a schedule and also referred to Condition #8 relative to the control of sub -leases. Mr. Rubin stated that both conditions were responses to concerns of the Commission. Dr. Brown cited similar uses relative to control of sub -leases in the operation of shopping centers. Ms. Konzak suggested an alternative to Condition #2 was to present a list of uses at the beginning of the CUP and inform Environmental Services of any new uses. Relative to Condition #8 she suggested review by the Director of Environmental Services as opposed -to approval. It was the consensus of the Commission to -change Condition #2 to read: ...provide the City with a list of all uses to occur at the'school site at the beginning of the CUP and at the time of the change of scheduling. After discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to retain the language of Condition #8 because it was believed to be necessary to review sub -lessees just as it is necessary to review the initial lessees. Dr. Brown recommended approval of CUP 91 and Resolution No. P.C. 84-23 as amended with attached conditions; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. #601X-BI5 GRADING #655 - The staff report was presented by #6 YELLOWBRICK ROAD Associate Planner Steve Rubin. A brief background was given. The request is to construct a new single family residence on a lot with a total average slope exceeding 35%. Mr. Rubin thought no views would be obstructed and the natural grades would be maintained. He stated that it was staff's opinion that Grading Application #655 meets the criteria and intent of the City's Development code and General Plan. He recommended approval of Grading Application No. 655. Lamar Robinson, 1455 Crenshaw Boulevard was available for questions. There were none. Mrs. Wike moved to approve Grading Application #655; seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown advised that this application is appealable to the City Council. GRADING #739 - APPEAL The staff report was presented by 5549 MISTRIDGE Assistant Planner Greg Fuz. He said the request is to allow the construction of a deck which would require footings to be placed on a 66% slope. He gave a brief background as outlined in the staff report. Photographs were displayed. He stated the considerations as listed in the staff report. He said that staff believed that the General Plan does not support grading on that type of slope without the Commission's approval and thought the project could be scaled down and the deck could remain on the lawn area. He recommended denial of Grading Application #739 -Appeal. Mrs. Ortolano cited two areas from the Development Code, pages 32 and 40 and asked if there was any specific danger to health, safety of welfare of the public. Mr. Fuz said development on such slopes increases landslide erosion problems and the issue is avoiding potential geologic problems. He said the General Plan specifically states non-structural uses. Mrs. Wike asked about low intensity use. Mr. Fuz said low intensity uses are no structures, like trails. Discussion ensued relative to the deck as an accessory structure as opposed to a primary structures and an accessory structure is not necessary for the primary enjoyment of the property. Mrs. Wike asked about a policy change relative to approval of these types of structures. Mr. Fuz explained the approval process was changed from a Site Plan Review process to a Grading Application as a result of prior Planning Commission concern. He said there was no specific change in code. It became a policy change by staff based on Planning Commission concerns. The Commission felt there was a proliferation of decks. Commission requested staff to bring back the background of that policy change together with prior minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION -2- 8/28/84 9- #601X -B16 Mr. Douglas Talley, 5549 Mistridge Road, landowner addressed the Commission with the following comments. He said there was nothing outstanding about this deck and that there were other decks built that have similar footings in the slope and there are no geologic problems. He stated only 50% of the deck would extend over the side of the hill. He thought the deck had been rejected because of the footings and not because of size. He commented that cantilevering would be economically prohibitive. He said there would be no grading; only cut and fill; and there would be additional protection from run-off by the deck itself and the concrete swale provided additional drainage for the hill. Dr. Brown asked if the already built decks were built prior to the incorpor- ation of the City. Mr. Talley thought one was constructed after 1979. Dr. Brown advised that cut and fill is considered grading and he also commented that the Commission is not concerned with aesthetics and economics. Dr. ,Brown then asked if the deck would interfere with the swale. Mr. Talley said no. Mrs. Ortolano asked the dimensions of the deck over the hill. Mr. Talley said it would extend 16 feet over the slope. Mrs. Wike listed dates of some decks already built - 1968, 1973, 1976 and 1979. It was determined that two were built prior to incorporation of the City and two were built prior to the change in policy. Mr. Ralph Witten, 2733 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, architect, said the existing decks have proven there has been no erosion and discussed the built-in safety factors. Dr. Brown asked if cantilevering out 16 feet on a slope greater than 35% would be safe. Mr. Witten replied yes. Further discussion centered around the possibility of cantilevering and its practicality. The rationale of the Commission was as follows: Mr. Von Hagen supported staff's recommendation. Mrs. Ortolano thought it_appropriate to decide these applications on a case by case basis. Mrs. Wike opposed staff's recommendation based on the fact of the already built decks in the area. Mr. McNulty had no comment. Dr. Brown was concerned with grading on a slope and concurred with staff. He did not think the previous decks were an appropriate criteria since they were constructed prior to incorporation and the policy change. Dr. Brown moved to deny the appeal of Grading 739, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed on a 4 - 1 vote. Dr. Brown advised this application is appealable to City Council within 15 days. PLANNING COMMISSION -3- 8/28/84 5 CIP FOR FISCAL By consensus of the Commission, this item YEAR 184-185 was moved to the end of the agenda. GRADING 730 - APPEAL A brief staff report was presented by 2809 VIA EL MIRO Associate Planner Steve Rubin. At the direction of the Commission, staff met with the applicants to consider alter- natives including the possibility of a Height Variation. After staff conducted a view analysis using a 25 foot maximum height, it was determined there is a potential for view impairment to the adjacent neighbor. He stated it is difficult to precisely determine the degree of impact without specific plans. Mr. Rubin stated an appeal by the surrounding homeowners would be likely. Photographs were distributed. Discussion ensued relative to pilings, and original versus the modified application, floor area, location of cesspool and alternatives. Staff's position is that the subject lot has a limited buildable area and the proposed addition is too large for the area. Therefore, staff recom- mended upholding denial of the original application as well as the modified application to Grading No. 730 - Appeal. Mr. Von Hagen asked what changes needed to be made to satisfy staff. Mr. Rubin replied that staff did not have the ability to approve a structure in the slope. Mr. Von Hagen asked how many pilings were needed to support the living area. Mr. Rubin said he was not qualified to respond. Mrs. Wike asked if staff would have approved the structure if it were the primary structure. Mr. Rubin said it was difficult to say. For a new house, staff would consider the graded pad as the appropriate area to locate the structure. The application would be denied if construction went beyond the pad area. Lengthy discussion continued relative to pilings in the slope. Mr. Gallio, 2809 Via El Miro, reiterated his purpose for the increased living area. He said cantilivering was not recommended by his engineer. The cesspool is located to the west side of the addition so therefore, that alternative is not feasible. His neighbors, the O'Hares have indicated they would protest a Height Variation. Therefore, he said there are no other workable alternatives available. He discussed the proposed addition. He believed his request is reasonable and that this addition is for necessity purposes and not luxury and that the expansion is his right to enjoy his property. Dr. Brown discussed self-imposed hardship. Discussion continued relative to clarification of the square footage of the addition. It was determined that 900 square feet was for the expansion of living area and 400 square feet for the deck. PLANNING COMMISSION -4- 8/28/84 #601X -B18 4 Mrs. Ortolano moved to deny appeal to Grading #730; seconded by Dr. Brown. Roll Call: AYES: ORTOLANO, BROWN NOES: McNULTY, VON HAGEN, WIKE Mrs. Ortolano thought the living area over the slope was the problem. she said the project being proposed is too large for the lot. She did not think removal of the deck would be enough of an adjustment. Mr. Von Hagen was concerned with the number of pilings. He could see the effort of the applicant to improve a smaller house and their concern for the neighbors relative to a Height Variation. He believed the house needed additional space to suit the family needs. Mr. McNulty thought the expansion was too large, but thought it was dead space and did not offend anyone; therefore, he did not think the applicants should be denied the use of the property. Mrs. Wike thought the proposed size was excessive and that the Height Variation would impair the neighbors. She recommended reducing the proposed addition. Dr. Brown thought the project was simply too large for the area and the lot did not have the expansibility. He suggested cantilevering as an option. The motion was restated by Mr. Von Hagen to approve the appeal thus overturning staff's denial, seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed on a 3-2 vote. Roll Call: AYES: McNULTY, VON HAGEN, WIKE NOES: ORTOLANO, BROWN RECESS 8:40 P.M. RECONVENED 8:50 P.M. VARIANCE 108 Dr. Brown advised that Variance 108 was inadvertently omitted from the agenda. He stated that legally it must be put on the agenda and the public hearing continued. It was the consensus of the Commission to do so thereby opening the public hearing and continuing the item. REVISION TO TENTATIVE Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented TRACT MAP 37885 AND the staff report and gave a brief history CONDITIONAL USE of events. He stated that a large number PERMIT #79 of the original conditions of approval relate to geology. He further discussed the proposed development and its proposed revisions as being a result of the soils engineer and geologist findings that a large amount of material underlying Mainsail Drive is of poor quality. He said the request is to change the alignment of Mainsail Drive by read- justing the approved lot configuartion. Three lots would be relocated in the proposed revision. Lots 45 and 46 would be at the southernmost tract boundary while lot 47 would be located at the end of Coolheights Drive. A cul-de-sac was to be built at the end of Coolheights. Lot 45 and 46 would PLANNING COMMISSION -5- 8/28/84 15 #601X -B19 be in an area zoned open space hazard, and which is also identified as a likely Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly colony. This last item is the primary concern relating to the proposed revision. Mr. Rubin also stated that the applicant had informed staff that they would be open to ideas re improving the end of Hightide Drive and expanding Horse trails. The approved Tenta- tive Tract Map indicates a riding trail which is not proposed to be changed. The applicant has contacted Dr. Richard Arnold to conduct a field survey regarding the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly and prepare a supplement to final EIR #16. Mr. Rubin stated that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested to review the proposed plan along with Dr. Arnold's findings. Concerns then centered around the existing cliffs, utility poles and horse trails. The three alternatives were read as written in the staff report. Dr. Brown stated that in earlier Planning Commission meetings, the geology was the primary consideration. Discussion ensued relative to the horse trails and undergrounding the utilities. I Dr. Brown opened the public hearing. Mr. Ken Marks, Palos Verdes Properties, 3838 Carson, Suite 220, Torrance expanded on the process of the revision. He said the butterfly issue is important to the approval of the project which involves Lots 45 and 46. He stated the poles in question are not on his property, but he would look into the situation. He acknowledged the concerns of the Commission. Staff was instructed by the Commission to check with the City Attorney relative to dealing with the poles not on the applicant's property. Mrs. Ortolano asked the applicant his feeling about increasing the horse trails. Mr. Marks replied he had no objection; additional trails could be dedicated on the map. Mrs. Ortolano asked about the structure at the end of Hightide Drive. Mr. Marks said he did not have the final street plan. Hightide was not feasible for a cul-de-sac. Perhaps a turn -around could be investigated. Mr. Rubin discussed the original rationale behind the cul-de-sac on Hightide. The following citizens addressed the Commission with concerns about the possibility of a new landslide and spoke in opposition to the revision to Tentative Tract Map 37885. Mr. Jan Smith, 3855 Pirate Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr. Max Thomas, 3849 Pirate Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes The following citizens were concerned that adequate provisions be made for equestrian/hiking trails through the area: PLANNING COMMISSION -6- 8/28/84 1P #601X -B26 Mrs. Linda Miller, 2283 Carriage Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association. Ms. Judy Schnerk, 3444 Hightide Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. The following citizens were concerned with having the remaining utilities placed underground: Mrs. Sachi Nakano, 3756 Coolheights Drive Ms. Lani Todd, 3774 Falconhead Drive Ms. Joanne Cooper, 3764 Coolheights Drive Mr. John Merrill, 3770 Coolheights Drive Mrs. Ortolano stated that she lived at the end of Coolheights and she too would like to see the utility poles placed underground. Mr. McNulty moved to continue the public hearing, seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed on a 3-2 roll call vote. Mrs. Ortolano expressed concerns about the trails and the butterfly issue. Dr. Brown reiterated the four issues as: (1) trails, (2) utility poles, (3) Geology of lots 45 and 46 and (4) Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly. Mrs. Wike asked about the CC&R's and equestrian easement and the three rail fences. Mr. Von Hagen was concerned with the common area maintenance and concerned with the City's liabilities with hazardous conditions. Dr. Brown reiterated the main issue is to change the configuration of Mainsail, Ms. Ortolano concurred. He stated the butterfly issue cannot be dealt with until the first rains. He proposed making this a condition of approval. CIP FOR FISCAL The Commission discussed the various YEAR 184-'85 Capital projects identified in the pro- posed 1984-85 through 1988-1989 Capital Improvement Program. The consensus of the Commission was opposed to a sand volleyball court at Del Cerro Park because this is not an improvement for a passive park. Senior Planner Ann Negendank replied that the priority of the court was lowered by the City Council. Reference was made to the ball diamonds at Portuguese Bend and Rancho Palos Verdes Park and the real need for both facilities. Ms. Negendank said there was no intention to delete either improvement. Relative to the trails, it was asked if the $10,000 budgeted could be spent on a traffic signal. PLANNING COMMISSION -7- 8/28/84 #601x -B27 q Ms. Negendank said the money set aside for trail uses could be used for a signal if the signal was needed for trail purposes. The Sanitation district was mentioned relative to the $100,000 budget, and the discussion centered around whether this was enough money to actually make the necessary improvements and whether the money, if not enough, would be better spent elsewhere. Dr. Brown moved that the Planning Commission finds the 1984-85 Capital Projects consistent with the General Plan; it was seconded and passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and passed to adjourn at 11;20 P.M. to Saturday, September 8th at 8:00 A.M. at Coco's Restaurant in San Pedro. PLANNING COMMISSION -8- 8/28/84 #601X -B28