Loading...
PC MINS 198602116 M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION U" February 11, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 6:45 PM by Chairman Von Hagen at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: HODGE, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: MC NULTY, ORTOLANO Also present were acting Director of Environmental Services Ann Negendank, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Greg Fuz and Director of Public Works George Wentz. COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Mr. Anderson regarding continuance of GR 854 Appeal. It was agreed to continue the GR 854 Appeal to the next available date. Letter from Mayor Peter Weber of Rolling Hills Estates concerning the Levitt GR 874, Revision to GR 802. Memo from acting Director of Environmental Services Ann Negendank regarding the League of California Cities Planning Commission Institute Conference. CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution P.C. No. 86-4 The Commission discussed approving Resolution P.V. Properties P.C. 86-4. Mrs. Wike noted her objection to Forrestal Tract Nos. 7A and 21 of Exhibit "A". Mr. Von Hagen moved to approve Resolution 86-4, seconded by Mr. Hodge and passed by ma3ority with Mrs. Wike dissenting. Minutes of January 14, 1986 Mrs. Wike moved to approve the January 14, 1986 minutes, seconded by-kfr; Von Hagen and passed - unanimously. Minutes of January 28, 1986,-, Paragraph 6, Page 4 was corrected to read, "Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing." The Commission discussed including the costs of maintaining a" -horse trail similar to the one in The Ranch as a comparison figure for determining homeowner costs, the accuracy of the numbers, the pertinence of including numbers from The Ranch, the determination of comparison numbers to be a staff/Public Works responsibility, ands the problem with including extraneous material in the minutes. Minutes February 11, 1986 " Page 2 The January 28, 1986 minutes were tabled until the next regular scheduled meeting so that the horse trail maintenance costs from The Ranch can be included as follows: Costs for Maintaining 1 1/2 Miles of Horse Trails for One Year: $ 11900.00 $3,000,000 Liability Insurance 4,800.00 Weed Abatement 2,000.00 Wood Chips 2,000.00 Wood Fence Maintenance $10,700.00 139 Homes/$920.00 per Year per Homeowner CONTINUED BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING CUP 104, Variance 131 Assistant Planner Greg Fuz presented the Kubicek, 18 La Vista Verde staff report on this request for a storage/ changing shed in an OH zone, tennis court lighting, and a five car carport with the recommendations that the storage/changing room and carport Variances be denied and the Conditional Use Permit for the tennis court lights be approved. Staff discussed conditions for tennis court light approval, the carport meeting required setbacks, the storage room meeting required setbacks after the lot lines are adjusted, the City having not received a lot line adjustment application, the carport to be considered part of the main residence as a result of the breezeway/ bridge, and the second story addition can be attached or detached under the Code as long as it does not have a kitchen. The Commission discussed the second story living quarters to possibly be a "granny" flat, to be part of the existing residence, and past denials of such proposed units. Chairman von Hagen opened the public hearing. Mr. Josef Kubicek, 18 La Vista Verde, applicant, stated his interest in the application to be mainly focused on the time allowed for tennis court light useage.,voicediconcern over tearing down the storage/changing room, and noted easement arrangements he made with neighbors. Mr. Kubicek also discussed - a carport secondcstory__wi:ll'ndt be built, carport' -access -:to -be easier than garage access, his opinion that the previous County permit included a storage/ changing room of existing dimensions, and his agreement with staff's proposed conditions with the exception of the time allowed for the tennis court lights requesting a 10:00 PM time limit. Mr. Ed Masi, 17 La Vista Verde, voiced concern over Mr. Kubicek's intrusion on his property, discussed the Grant Deed given to Mr. Kubicek, bills Mr. Kubicek has not paid, and litigation proceedings regarding property intrusion. Mr. Hodge moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. Minutes February 11, 1986 Page 3 Staff noted the road easement to be a recorded easement. The Commission discussed Code requirements for enclosed two car garages, Mr. Kubicek's original County Variance, staff's recommendation of 7:00 AM -9:00 PM time limitation for tennis court lights, intensity of the tennis court lights, the fire break, the non -glare coating on the tennis court, 2,000 total wattage Code limitations to-capply to residence security lighting, posting of a "No Smoking" sign, the color of the tennis court surface, direction of the tennis court lights, and the existing square footage of the changing ---room as opposed to the original requested square footage. Mrs. Wike moved CUP 104 and Variance 131 be approved with the staff Conditions, the storage/changing room be approved, and the carport not be approved but brought into compliance with the Code requirement for two car enclosed garages. Mr. Von Hagen seconded the motion. In addition, the Commission discussed staff's recommendation that the storage/changing room Variance be denied. Mr. Hodge moved amendment to the motion include an addition to staff's Condition No. 7 to read, "...and a 'No Smoking' sign be posted." Mrs. Wike accepted the amendment and the motion passed unanimously. INFORMAL HEARING Grading 845 and 846 Assistant Planner Greg Fuz presented the Vakili staff report onuthis request for approval 3841 and 3837 Crest Road of revised plans for two new single family residences.with the recommendations to approve GR No. 845 in--�concept as presented or with minor modification and refer GR No. 846 back to applicant for redesign. Staff requested Commission direction in regard to the exterior stairs, noted the Conditional Use Permit title search for GR 846 to still be in process, voiced concern over the GR 846 residence location and the 8' downslope retaining wall, and the legality of lot. Ms. Sherry Ikezawa, 10 W. Packsaddle, Rolling Hills Estates, applicant, discussed GR No. 845 noting problems with moving the house, reducing the size of the house, and no intentions to subdivide. Ms. Ikezawa also discussed GR No. 846 noting concern over moving the house 16' more, time spent complying with City requirements, and narrow driveways/high retaining walls. Ms. Ikezawa stated there to be no problem with removing the outside stairs of GR No. 846. Staff noted applicant was told several weeks ago to move-house—proposed i.n._GR._No. 846` 16' and stressed the Open _Space Hazard Zone designation_of__the land._ _ The Commission discussed GR No. 845 in regard to steepening the slope in order to install a smaller retaining wall and minimizing the 67% slopes_adjacent to -the driveway. The Commission discussed GR No. 846 in regard to moving the house an additional 16' and accepting staff's recommendations so that a compromise between staff and applicant can be worked out. The Commission also noted the difficulty of building on the lots. Minutes February 11, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Von Hagen moved to approve GR No. 845 and send GR No. 846 back to applicant to try to resolve the 161 discrepancywithstaff and come up with a reasonable alternative for both parties. The motion died for lack of a second. The Commission discussed taking each issue as a separate item. en moved to den staff in _re--submitt passed GR.. No. 846, with direction to applicant_to work with_ E!L application. Mrs. Wike seconded and the motion - Staff noted the six month time limit for the applications would lapse on March @4ppl with redesign, 10, 1986,_if GR 845 application is denied_applicant can_r ly h rede I _M9 _Q_R_8�45 application could be tabled until March 10 but the next available_ date is March 11, 1986, a new fee would be required should GR 845 application expire, and a 90 day time extension on GR 845 is possible. Mr. Von Hagen moved to approve GR No. 845 and the motion died for lack of a second. o� Mrs. Wike moved to approve GR No. 845 in concept_Airedting the applicant go back and work with staff to explore the suggested staff alternatives for reducing the driveway slope. The motion died for lack of a second. The Commission discussed the GR No. 845 application with reference to placing undue hardship on applicant, reducing the house size, compromises-' of staff/ applicant, establishing the legality of the lot_,_and-passilng the request if__ 4ppliE_anf_would -4—gree to move Tfiie—house -back —according to staff's recommendations in order to mitigate the 67/o driveway slope.___ Staff noted the GR No. 845 could be moved back about 101 or the family room could be reduced so that the driveway would not be on as much of an extreme slope. Mrs. Wike moved to send GR No. 845 back to applicant so that applicant can work with staff to mitigate the 67% slope, adjacent to the driveway. Staff requested guidance regarding whether the Code prohibiting exterior stairs on a second story addition applies to all new construction or only to additions, discussed inside stairs to be currently allowed, the Commission giving applicant strong direction, and grading codes with regard to view impairment. The Commission discussed including outside stairs in the next work session, GR No. 845 with regard to redesigning the house, the flexability of the GR No. 845 lot, and view impairment with regard to moving the house. The motion passed by majority with Mr. Von Hagen dissenting. Minutes February 11, 1986 Page 5 Height Variation No. 426 Appeal Robinson 2112 Crestwood Street appeal of staff denial be denied. C Assistant Planner Greg Fuz presented the staff report on this appeal of staff denial for a second story addition.with the recommendation that appellant's Staff noted revised plans would reduce the Gibson's rear yard and den view by 40% and stressed view impact on the Gibson's lot to be significant based on three considerations: (1) panoramic view would be eliminated; (2) 1/3 or more of the porch view next to the living room would be obstructed; and (3) from a cumulative perspective the addition should not be allowed because houses on neighboring properties of similar magnitude would impair the Gibson's view and would set a precedent for this type of addition. The Commission discussed view analysis from primary living areas. Staff noted that the Gibson's rear yard view is taken from the den, the porch view is outside the setback and therefore taken as a viewing area, that a viewing area does not have to be taken from the house if it is outside the setback, and that views are taken from non -setback areas in order to protect all potential primary and secondary views. Mr. Mike Robinson, 2112 Crestwood, appellant, addressed the view consideration from the Gibson's side porch and stated the view blockage would be only of trees and not of the existing "view", discussed the ingress/egress of the Gibson's patio to be difficult, lawnguard/patio equipment infront of the porch indicates the Gibson's don't use the porch as a primary viewing area, the view impairment has been reduced to 15-20%, the viewing area below 16' has been opened up to protect the Gibson's view, the precedent setting issue noting at least 32 two-story homes in the area, willingness to comply with staff's recommendations if they will significantly help reduce the view obstruction, and the lowering of the entry is not a significant reduction. The Commission discussed street slope and the potential of precedent setting - for future additions. Interested residents were as follows: Mr. Bob Encisco Mr. Tom Vlahov Mrs. H. B. Hobbs Captain Thomas Gibson Mary Gibson 2147 Fairhill Drive 2169 Fairhill Drive 2155 Fairhill Drive 2161 W. Fairhill Drive 2161 W. Fairhill Drive Interested residents voiced concern over view obstruction, precedent setting, objected to Mr. Robinson's stating a growing family as the need for more room, the rebuilt fence height common with the 2155 property. Captain and Mrs. Gibson noted the proposed Robinson addition would also obstruct their living room view and cited a February 6 News Pilot article in which the City Attorney from another _Ci_ty_s_tated his opinion regarding restrictions of heights and ,.precedent setting in that City. Minutes "February 11, 1986 Page 6 Staff discussed the lowering of the open space entry, requiring a covenant for future property development, =the _Code to require chimneys to exceed the ridge_ height, and the proposed chimmney to be large but to not obstruct the views as much as might be assumed because of the existing location of trees and shrubs which are already taking away a filtered night view. The Commission discussed precedent setting, view impairment/encouraging additions which do not obstruct views, the proposed two-story open'entr_y,_ the _ �_' _ _ __ chimmney/ridgeline, property owners improving property/protecting homeowners' rights with regard to significant abuse of view obstruction, appellant's efforts to reach a reasonable compromise, supporting No. 3 of staff's Alternatives to result in additional modifications which could continue to limit the degree of impact to the Gibson's property, and requiring a covenant against any second floor/two-story additions to the appellant's property. Mr. Hodge moved to recommend approval of staff's Alternative No. 3, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. The Commission voiced concern over the future cumulative effect on the entire community and discussed alternatives of appellant building on surrounding land without building up— Staff p— Staff noted appellant's buildable area of 625 square feet on the ground floor would include a pool in the backyard and that appeallant's propb e addition does, infact, include adding to the ground floor. The motion was passed by majority with Mrs. Wike dissenting. The Commission reminded appellant to please further lessen the view impact on the Gibson property during the revision,_process_and_noted_no..further_Commiss.i,on_ review of the item to be necessary. Appeal rights were noted. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Variance No. 133 Assistant Planner Greg Fuz presented the Richards staff report on this request for a 118" 6110 Armaga Spring Road reduction in the required 5' sideyard for an existing patio cover with the recommendation that Resolution P.C. No. 86-7 be adopted, denying Variance Request No. 133. Staff noted applicant to be increasing outdoor recreational area at the=_expense of adjacent neighbors privacy and that applicant's house meets the setbacks for the tract, the possibility of applicant being told a permit was not necessary, the City not responsible for determining lot lines, and the enclosed covered area to be closer than Code allows. The Commission discussed moving the posts back and cutting the overhang correspondingly, applicant's attempts to obtain information regarding City permits, the possible error made in originally determining lot lines prior to/ during construction of the patio cover to not be relevant to the application, and the house being improperly sited on the lot. Minutes February 11, 1986 Page 7 Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing. Ms. Kerry Richards, 6110 Armaga Spring Road, applicant, related her phone conversations with the City regarding permits and stated she was told a permit was not necessary, footings were dug and poured for posts, she never received notice from the City concerning the footings after pool inspection, she received a Code violation notice three months after the over- :'h� was built, the Assistant District Attorney's advice that a Variance Application was in order, the purpose of the covered patio is for shade, addressed fire access/safety related to setbacks, questioned staff's "privacy" reasoning, and voiced concern over the financial hardship involved related to removing the posts. Interested residents were: Mr. Tom Smith Mr. Gunther Merli 6102 Armaga Spring Road 28810 King Arthur Court Interested residents stated opinions that the overhangs does not infringe on the neighboring property's privacy, the overhang is aesthetically appealing, and recommended the Variance be approved. Mrs. Wike moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Staff suggested the Commission approve the overhang in concept so that staff can bring back -appropriate findings for the approval. Mrs. Wike moved to approve Variance No. 133 in conceptseconded by Mr. Hodge. The Commission discussed the findings for the Variance. The motion was passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. Staff requested the Commission direction regarding findings for the Variance. The Commission stated findings for the Variance,tb were to be incorporated into the approving resolution. - — -----= _--= - _ S 1 i Minutes February 11, 1986 Page 8 INFORMAL HEARING Grading No. 854 Appeal Anderson 1941 Upland Street Continued at the---r-equest of the applicant Grading No. 874 Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the Revision to Grading No. 802 staff report on-thib, request to -construct a Levitt temporary construction road on a hillside and to revise requirement for traffic signal installation at Deep Valley Drive and Silver Spur Road with the recommen- dation that the Commission revise Condition No. 12 of GR 802. Staff discussed a Hold Harmless Agreement with regard to liability,] Rolling Hil _ Estates requiring a signal at the location when two buildings are completed and not for one building Mr. Thomas P. Black, 279 W. 7th Street, San Pedro, project architect, discussed one parcel in Rolling Hills Estates and one parcel in Rancho Pa os erdes, the "temporary" road including the definition of "temporary", slope stabilization, staff's excellent report, Page 3 of staff's Recommendations with regard to the condition of the homes above the property before/after the pilings are installed, stockpiling of excavated dirt on the Rolling Hills side of the property ---'any,�excess will be hauled away-- and assuming no problem with parking the equipment on the Rolling Hills Estates property, and asked for clarification regarding the signal. Mr. Black noted the Hold Harmless Agreement with regard to Mr. Levitt having no control over same and stated the Peninsula Rim Homeowners' Association president attended every'Rolling Hills Estates City Council meeting r statingnoobjections-once-,the project was approved Staff discussed the caissons and the temporary access road in Rancho Palos Verdes, application for building to be on file, geology of site in, review, the need for the permit of an' -,access road would not arise until late September/early October, no written correspondence from the Peninsula Rim Homeowners' Association, and the Rolling Hills Estates method of slope stabilization isi to be the same for Rancho Palos Verdes The Commission discussed Rolling Hills Estates taking testimony from Rancho Palos Verdes residents, the Traffic Committee recommending a signal at the location when two buildings were the subject of the application to develop, the Rolling Hills Estates method of slope stabilization, sending a letter to the president of the Peninsula Rim Homeowners! Association to determine its opinion on the issue, approving staff's recommendation stressing every protection must be made to insure slope stabilization and if the proposed method is not the very bestwhat method might be better, stockpiling, and heavy construction equipment storage. Minutes February 11, 1986 Page 9 Staff noted Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes are working together to determine the best slope stabilization method, reports studying site geology did not end at the City of Rancho Palos Verdes boundary line, geotechnical design parameters for the caissons are in transit to the City Geologist for review, stockpiling will have to take place on the Rolling Hills Estates lot/ be hauled away/or used as fill, storage of heavy construction equipment, and the property owner's liability for whatever happens on the property no matter what the 3urisdiction is. Ms. Jeannette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow Road, voiced concern over slope stabili- zation, discussed the contractor returning the slope to its natural state and_ ;,what if the slope_fails_during construction Staff discussed apr)licant posting the signal bond prior to appying for the road_per_- _mit, the selection _of_the access road _lo_catio_n/configuration,__Roll.ing_Hills Estates requiring Hold Harmless Agreements from commercial developers! Hold Harmless Agreements to be common when pro3ect access involves public streets, -City Attorney's opinion that the Hold Harmless Agreement would be in force as long as the applicant owns the lot and remains solvent, closely monitoring the temporary road's possible damage to the parcels, applicant's request to not; apply -to the Hold Harmless Agreement but to bonding, and consulting with Rolling Hills Estates with regard to the curb cut. The Commission discussed the long-term ramifications related to the building collapsing and the City's liability with regard to same,adequately monitoring the pro3ect, the existing access road being restored,. ^ the Hold Harmless Agreement being required until signalization as a benefit to the City, posting a performance bond for restoring.th_e access road, and_placing__a-time_.-limit-on the temporary road. Mr. Von Hagen moved to approve GR 802 in accordance with staff's Alternative No. 2 with a Hold Harmless Agreement and to give staff leeway if unalterably convinced that the Hold Harmless Agreement should expire when the signal goes in and the second 50% of the bond is proposed to be posted with Rancho Palos Verdes and can be a bond or a cash deposit. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE None REPORTS STAFF Staff discussed Code Amendment 20 with regard to the extreme slope permit approach noting it was Code Amendment 20's intentions to deal with grading on extreme slopes , associated with accessory_ structures being built, and not gradingfretain' _ walls unrelated to accessory structures and recommend -e4 -the -existing review method remain. The Commission noted its agreement with staff's recommendations, Minutes February 11, 1986 Page 10 COMMISSION The Commission discussed Code loopholes with regard to second units and requested staff research this item and bring same back for discussion. Staff discussed the next time an amendment to the Code is formulated as the appropriate time to address the second unit loopholes. The Commission discussed correspondence from acting Director of Environmental Services Ann Negendank including: League of California Cities Conference March 12-14, 1986 Staff noted the budget supports three commissioners attending. Mrs. Wike, Mr. Hodge and Mr. Von Hagen voiced interest in attending. Financial disclosure forms were also discussed. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hodge moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 PM until February 25, 1986, seconded by Mr. Von hagen and passed unanimously.