Loading...
PC MINS 19760224M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission February 24, 1976 APPROVED AS PRESENTED March 9, 1976 The meeting was called to order at 7.40 p.m. in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Building, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Shaw. PRESENT: Blue, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Trefts, Shaw ABSENT. None Also present was Director of Planning Sharon Hightower. MINUTES APPROVAL REFERRAL FROM COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ANTENNA HEIGHT regard to antenna height. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue and carried, February 10,1976 minutes were approved as presented. Peter Von Hagen, 28410 Meadowmist, expressed the concern of the Amateur Radio Club of RPV with what they consider overly restrictive provisions of the Development Code with It was the Commission's consensus that a sub -committee comprised of Mr. McTaggart and Mrs. Trefts will meet with Mr. Von Hagen, Melvin Hughes and John Alexander (President of the Club), and will present a preliminary report at the next regular meeting of the Commission. GRADING APPLICATION Mr. Kuhr indicated he and staff had reached 30549 Oceanaire agreement on the calculations for his lot, Applicant: Rein Kuhr with his figure of 24.95% as the correct average slope. Mr. Kuhr also expressed concern that the "footprint" of the house should not be included in the total of grading. Mrs. Hightower indicated the "footprint" of the house had not been included in any of the staff's calculations; also, since the pool is under the house, it is considered a part of the house foot- print, not as a separate area. A separate grading approval from the City is not required if the only excavation is under the house or for a pool; this does not hold true if there is also fill or other grading on the lot. It was moved by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Trefts and carried, that the applica- tion be approved based on its compliance with the criteria and the finding that the intent although not the letter of criteria E is met. On the following roll call vote: AYES: Blue, McTaggart, Trefts NOES Rosenberg, Shaw GRADING APPLICATION #2 Mrs. Hightower summarized the request for Lot 124, Sattes & Matisse approval of grading for a building pad, Applicant: Butler Housing driveway approach, front and rear yards for a single family residence. It was staff's recommendation that the request be approved, subject to conditions. However, Mrs. Hightower indicated that, since the last site inspection by staff, a large amount of fill dirt has been dumped on the lot, probably from the applicant's other construction sites in the area. It was her suggestion that the contractor be cautioned against premature dumping in the future. H. D. Hoon, Vice -President of Butler Housing and A.E. Beran, of Engineering Services Corp. indicated the following: (1) The dirt was placed on the lot at Mr. Hoon's direction and was his error; the dirt was excess from the finish grading of ten other lots in the area. (2) The grading proposed allows the residence a view and produces a workable driveway. Mrs. Hightower indicated that, by confining the grading to a small area to conform to the formula, a higher volume of grading is called for than would be required if the grading was spread out over the lot. Commission discussion included: (1) The applicant is grading the lot to fit a standard, pre-existing house plan. (2) A number of homes have been constructed in the area to conform to the terrain, rather than requiring extensive grading. On motion of Mr Blue, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg and unanimously carried, Grading Application #2 was denied, based on the finding that Section 9667, Criteria A and D are not met, specifically, that grading distorts the natural contours of the lot and the grading is excessive beyond that necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. RECESS GRADING APPLICATION #2 (Continued) vious state. A brief recess was called at 9.05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m., with the same members present. Mr Rosenberg suggested that staff be instructed to set a reasonable time limit in which the illegal dumping is to be removed and the lot restored to its pre - Mrs. Hightower indicated that Code enforcement is an administrative responsibility, not a Commission responsibility; the applicant would be notified either to remove the dirt within a reasonable amount of time or to make application. It was the Commission's consensus that no such directive to staff was necessary. GRADING APPLICATION #3 Mrs. Hightower summarized the request for 6470 Chartres grading approval for a building pad with front and rear yards for a single family residence. In addition, the plan calls for grading on the adjacent lots. It was staff's recommendation that the request be denied, but that the applicant be given the option of,revising and re -submitting his plans. H. D. Hoon, of Butler Housing, and A. E. Beran, of Engineering Services Corporation, indicated the following: (1) The proposal is an attempt to enhance the view -from the lot, obtain -a flat7-rear-ya-rd; and have all drainage to go the street. (2) The adjacent lots are not owned by the applicant, but the applicant's engineer will be designing the plans for the lots. Commission discussion included: (1) The lot as it is is almost flat; the slops are very gentle. The lot should be developed as is (2) Building a lot up to capture a view is defeating the intent of the ordinance; this is not a view lot. (3) The plans for the adjacent lots should be submitted at the same time as this application. At the request of the applicant, and on the motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, Grading Application #3 was tabled. GRADING APPLICATION #2 (Continued) On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Shaw and unanimously carried, Grading' Application #2 was reopened for consideration. At the request of the applicant, and on the motion of Mr Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart and unanimously carried, that Grading Application #2 be tabled. Mrs Hightower indicated that, if revised plans are not received within approximately one month, action will be taken with regard to the illegal dumping. GRADING APPLICATION #11 Mrs. Hightower summarized the request for 28852 Crestridge Road grading approval for a house pad, yard, and Applicant: Jack D. Irvine driveway approach for a single family resi- dence. It was staff's recommendation that the request be approved, subject to condition. Mr. Jack Irvine, architect for the project, indicated that compliance with the ordinance necessitated the inclusion of a retaining wall (maximum height 101) in the rear yard. Such a retaining wall would be undesirable from both a cost and an aesthetic stand- point. If agreeable to the Commission (although it would not conform to the letter of P. C. -2- 2/14/76 41) 410 the ordinance) , he would like to remove the retaining wall in the rear and extend the toe of the slope about 10-12 feet, in order to make it flow more naturally into the existing natural terrain. Mrs. Hightower indicated she would tend to agree with the proposed alternative; the plans could then be brought back to staff for final approval. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Trefts, and carried, Grading Application #11 was approved as amended (specifically, eliminating the retaining wall in the rear yard, with the rear yard slope being held to 2:1, and encroachment into the 35% slope area not to exceed twelve feet) and that the plans be brought back to staff for final consider- ation; based on the finding that the proposal substantially meets the criteria and where it does not conform to the criteria, the non-conformance will achieve criteria A and D of Section 9667 of ordinance; said approval subject to the condition that a landscaping and irrigation plan be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. On roll call vote: AYES: Blue, McTaggart, Trefts, Shaw NOES: Rosenberg GRADING APPLICATION #20 Mrs. Hightower summarized the request for Yacht Harbor Drive area grading approval for corrective grading on Applicant: PV Properties ' Yacht Harbor Drive and a yard on Seawall Road, necessitated by landsliding action in the area. It was staff's recommendation that the request be approved. Clark Leonard, of Lanco Engineering, represented the applicant, indicating the project is a routine maintenance matter. The same thing was done two years ago. The owner would be agreeable to giving the City any disclaimers the City Attorney might require. On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. McTaggart and unanimously carried, Grading Application #20 was found to be a corrective grading project in a recognized private street, and the project be approved, and a non-suit covenant be required, if recommended by City's legal counsel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #9 Mrs. Hightower summarized the request for Request for Amendment amendment to Conditional Use Permit #9, to require only 150 feet of grape stake fence along the rear property lines of the first two homes on San Ramon Drive (eliminating the fence along the third and fourth homes) . Mrs. Hightower indicated she had no objection to such an amendment, provided the owner of the fourth house indicated he had no objection. Mr. Bernard Baumann, owner of the third house, indicated his agreement with the request and further indicated the new owner of the fourth house, Mr. Hugo Galmarine, also had no objections. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue and unanimously carried, the amendment to Conditional Use Permit #9 was granted, subject to staff's determination that the affected property owners are in agreement with the amendment. Members of the Commission expressed their concern that conditions imposed on this conditional use permit have still not been met; further concern was expressed with the laxity of enforcement on the part of staff and the limits of the Commission' s authority in the area of enforcement. Discussion included possibly getting an opinion from the City Attorney 'as to the proper procedures for rescinding a conditional use permit and what the Commission's authority is in cases of violation of conditions imposed. It was the Commission's consensus that staff present a status report on which of the conditions for Conditional Use Permit have been complied with at the next regular meeting. P.C. -3- 2/24/76 411 Mr. Rosenberg expressed interest in reviewing Section 9822 of the Development Code, when considering other possible code amendments. STAFF REPORTS Mrs. Hightower suggested in terms of Development Code revisions, a review of the grading ordinance should have a high priority. It was the consensus of the Commission that a work session be held on Monday, March 8, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. (if the Commission is still a legally constituted body) for the purposes of reviewing the grading ordinance. COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Shaw reported the sub-committee had Sub-Committee: Animal not yet met. Advisory Committee ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting to Monday, March 8, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. in the P.V.P. Unified School District Building, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, for the purposes of beginning review of the grading ordinance. P.C. -4- 2/24/76