Loading...
PC MINS 19760819M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting August 19, 1976 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Shaw. PRESENT: Hughes, McTaggart (arrived at 7:50 p.m.), Rosenberg, Shaw ABSENT: Blue Also present were Associate Planner Larry Davis and Assistant Planner Gary Weber. MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried (Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Blue were absent), approval of the minutes of August 10, 1976, was continued to the next regular meeting to allow the commissioners time to read the revisions to these minutes which were submitted to them tonight. COMMUNICATION Mr. Burton R. Reagan, 28210 Lomo Drive, FROM AUDIENCE stated he wished to appeal the deci- sion denying his request for Minor Exception Permit No. 6 to allow a six- foot fence along the rear property line, and also requested that the $50 appeal fee be waived. The Commission explained that it was the City Council and not the Plan- ning Commission who had the power to waive any required fees, and fur- ther explained that the Commission could not hear the appeal until after the fee is either paid by the applicant or waived by the City Council. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:50 p.m. Associate Planner Davis explained that the applicant must submit a let- ter stating the desire to appeal and on what grounds the appeal was being made, and Mrs. Reagan submitted at this time a letter including the above which had been previously prepared. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Shaw, and unanimously approved, the appeal period for Minor Exception Permit No. 6 was extended to ten (10) calendar days after the next City Council meeting, which will be September 7, to enable Mr. Reagan the opportunity to request a waiver from the City Council on the appeal fee without forfeiting his appeal rights due to the expiration of time requirements. GRADING #56 Associate Planner Davis explained that 30106 South Cartier this was a request for reconsideration Applicant: Butler Housing of an item which had been tabled at Corporation the meeting of June 22 due to grading on slopes in excess of 35%. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously approved, the request for reconsideration of Grading #56 was approved and set for the agenda of September 28, 1976. Mr. Davis requested a change in the agenda to have Special Animal Permit #7 directly follow Special Animal Permit #5 because of their close proximity. Planning Commission agreed with the change. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #18 Mrs. Shaw explained that public hear - 28503 Highridge Road ing had been held on August 10 for Applicant: Don C. Wallace this item, and that following -1- testimony, the public hearing had been declared closed, but that action by the Commission had been continued. Assistant Planner Weber explained that Staff had been supplied with a letter from Mr. Wallace and a memorandum from Mr. Hughes who had re- searched some of the technical aspects. He said Staff had also talked with Motorola and that the input from these three sources assisted in the formation of the recommended conditions as listed in the staff report. The Commission reviewed photographs of the project site. The Commission questioned the applicant and discussed among themselves several issues which concerned them including whether or not the appli- cant had enough control over Motorola to ensure that they would comply with any restrictions placed on the antenna pole by the City. They requested that Mr. Wallace submit a copy of the lease to Staff for re- view by the City Attorney, and Mr. Wallace agreed to this. They also discussed the possibility of allowing two additional poles to be used for amateur purposes, and the consensus was that the Commission would approve these poles under certain conditions, the main one being that the poles be used for non-commercial purposes only. They also felt that a height limit should be placed on these additional proposed poles and should be so stated in the resolution. Also stated in the resolution should be the approved configuration of the antennas on the commercial pole. It was the consensus among the commissioners that the City Attorney should be consul --ted to review the lease between Mr. Wallace and Motorola, as the Commission was hesitant to approve this conditional use permit without the opinion of the City Attorney. Due to the changes made at tonight's meeting, they also felt that the resolution should be re -- written by Staffprior to final approval. Bob Mohr, 28700 Circlet Drive, submitted a ten -page brief written by Mr. Shacter, the attorney representing the opponents. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Commission direc- ted Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for Conditional Use Permit #18 and—to—obtzci-n—th-e—opin-i-on--o-f—t-he—C-ity-A-t-torney—concern-i-ng—the—ap- pro�v-a-l—of—t-l-vr-ee--transmitting—poles-, and continued this item to the meeting of September 14 or until the City Attorney's opinion is received. The Commission also directed Staff to include in the resolution the fol- lowing conditions which the Commission deems necessary to protect pub- lic health, safety and general welfare in the area: 1. one (1) antenna pole may be used for commercial purposes, subject to the following limitations: A. The subject antenna pole shall not exceed ninety-five (95) feet in height. B. The subject antenna pole shall be limited to four (4) cross arm pairs. C. Each cross arm pair shall consist of no more than two (2) members, each having a maximum length of ten (10) feet and lying in a plane. D. Each cross arm pair shall be restricted to four (4) antennae of similar configuration to those which cur- rently exist. 2. Two additional antenna poles may be erected; however, said poles shall be used for non-commercial purposes only and shall be limited to a height which does not exceed any existing an- tenna pole currently located on the subject property. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: Blue -2- E RECESS SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT #5 5221 Silver Arrow Drive Applicant: Ralph B. Rogers SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT #7 5229 Silver Arrow Drive Applicant: James Mitchell but that they could be combined • At 9:00 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. with the same members present. Due to Mr. Rogers being ill, Mr. Mitchell was going to represent both requests, and -asked that the two re- quests be discussed together rather than separately to avoid repetition. The Commission consented to -this, pointing out that the Commission would have to vote on..each item separately, for discussion. Associate Planner Davis gave the commissioners a copy of a letter re- ceived by Staff on this day in favor of Special Animal Permit #7. Mr. Davis then gave the Staff report, explaining the background of the re- quests and the zoning; pointing out that the properties do not meet the minimum lot size requirement; noting the letters received in oppo- sition (which were included in the Commission's agenda packet) objec-- ting mainly to the problem of flies and related odors but also expres- sing concern that the area does not allow for safe access to riding trails; and recommending denial due to the lot size and the fact that Staff felt there was incompatibility with existing and future commer- cial, institutional, and residential development to the vicinity. James Mitchell, 5229 Silver Arrow Drive, explained that he and Mr. Rogers were only trying to get legally recognized what has existed for ten years, pointing out that the properties were considered horse property under the previous Los Angeles County zoning. Mr. Mitchell further ex- p1dined that he has two ponies which are ridden and maintained by the neighborhood children, who were in the audience. Mr. Mitchell said in his opinion the horses added to the rural atmosphere of the area, and that to his knowledge complaints had not been made in the past. Mr. Rogers said at present he has no horses, as the last one was stolen a few months ago, but that he has had them in the past and would like to obtain another horse now that his daughter is out of college and also for when his grandson visits him. Mrs. Naomi Lockwood, 27654 Warrior Drive, spoke in favor and felt that riding the ponies has been a great experience for her daughter as well as for the other children. Edith Bostrom, 15 Sweetbay Road, expressed concern about the horses being ridden down Hawthorne Boulevard, and suggested perhaps a chain link fence be erected between the riding trail (shoulder) and the traffic. Mrs. Fuhsi Ling, 5203 Silver Arrow, complained about the children riding the ponies across her lawn, objected to the odor and flies, and felt the properties were too close to the shopping center, and that the lots were much too small for horses. Matt Hansen, 5211 Silver Arrow Drive, said that they did not complain previously because they didn't know to whom they could complain. Mrs. Hansen expressed concern over trespassers in the area, and Mrs. Ling felt that because the fence along Hawthorne Boulevard was cut for the horses, the children feel they can walk through properties behind that fence. Clarification was made that the children being referred to as trespassers were not necessarily the children known to ride the sub- ject ponies, but were of all sizes and ages. Mrs. Buck, 5147 Silver Arrow Drive, spoke in favor of the request saying that the right-of-way on Hawthorne Boulevard was very wide and, there- fore, no more dangerous than any other street. The Commission expressed concern and questioned Mr. Mitchell about the distance that these children must travel down Hawthorne Boulevard before they reach a riding trail, pointing out that improvements for Hawthorne Boulevard may widen this street to the retaining wall, thus using the entire width of the shoulder. They expressed concern about the children infringing on the property rights of neighbors when riding these ponies. -3- • 0 Jenny Mitchell, 5229 Silver Arrow Drive, explained that there are other routes leading to riding trails besides Hawthorne Boulevard, and pro- ceeded to identify these for the Commission. The Commission expressed differing opinions as to the action which should be taken on these requests which included allowing the horses to remain because it is an existing use and the facilities are there, limiting the use to the current ownership, phasing out the use over a specific period of time or upon sale of the horses. The feeling was expressed that this is an urban and not a rural community and that although there was a feeling of sympathy, the use was inappropriate. RECESS At 10:15 p.m. a brief recess was -- called. The meeting reconvened at 10:25 p.m. with the same members pre -- sent. At this point the two applications were split for separate discussion and action. The Commission discussed points previously covered, and the feeling was expressed that since there are no horses on the property at the present time, there was no need to phase out the use at 5221 Silver Arrow Drive, and that it would be a disservice to the community to continue a use which is inappropriate. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion that Special Animal Permit #5 be permit- ted to temporarily exist for a period not to exceed ten years or until the sale of the property, whichever comes first, that the number of animals to be maintained on said property be limited to one, that equip- ment currently in disrepair used for keeping horses be brought up to standards, and any non-compliance with the sanitation provision or the equestrian ordinance will constitute revocation of the permit. This motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Shaw, Special Animal Permit #5 was denied for the following reasons; A. Does not meet minimum lot size requirement for keeping of horses on a developed lot. B. Incompatibility with existing and future commercial, insti- tutional, and residential development in the vicinity. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: Blue Mr. Rogers was advised that he had the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within ten (10) days of this hearing. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Special Animal Permit #7 subject to the following conditions: that no more than,two animals be allowed; that the property be main- tained in a manner which is in conformance with the equestrian ordinance; that violation of the sanitation provisions of the ordinance would con- stitute revocation of the permit; and that the permit be for a period of ten years or until sale of the property, whichever comes first. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: McTaggart NOES: Hughes, Rosenberg, Shaw ABSENT: Blue As the above motion failed, the Commission continued discussion, and it was suggested having review periods to see if the conditions are being met. It was also suggested having the permit run only for the time the existing horses are there, as they are regarded by the proponents as pets, but that there would be no reasons to replace these horses as the objective is to at some point eliminate the use from this property. -4- On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, Staff was direc- ted to prepare a motion to approve Special Animal Permit #7 subject to the following conditions: 1. Due to the substandard lot size, a maximum of two ponies shall be kept on subject property. 2. This permit shall be permitted for a duration of three years or until a transfer of the property, whichever comes first. 3. Continued violation of any sanitation provisions of the Develop- ment Code shall result in immediate revocation of Special Animal Permit V. 4. That this temporary aniaml permit be recorded in its entirety and with all provisions with the County Recorder. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg NOES: Shaw ABSENT: Blue Mrs. Shaw explained that although it was not her desire to outright deny this permit, she did not feel the area lends itself to horses, and felt the permit should have been limited for the period of time the existing horses are there. SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT #6 Associate Planner Davis reviewed the 16 Peppertree Drive request for fifteen horses and two Applicant: Everett Sutton goats and maintaining a fence which does not meet Code requirements, pointing out the location, conditions of the lot, the size, the proposed construction, and stated that eight letters opposing this request have been received by the Staff with the opponents expressing concerns about potential animal odors, that per- haps this was to be a commercial venture, that this would cause a sub- stantial increase in traffic on the private roads, and that the accu- mulation of manure and the flies may have a serious impact on the health of the surrounding area. Mr. Davis said the Staff recommendation is for approval of eight horses and two goats, and that the existing fence should be brought into conformance with the Code, with other conditions imposed. Mr. Davis also pointed out that legally and without permit, the applicant could have up to six horses. Mr. Everett Sutton, 16 Peppertree Drive, applicant, said that he wanted to eliminate the two goats from his request, and is now only asking for the fifteen horses. He explained that he owned three separate lots: 16 Peppertree and #1 Pomegranate, each of these lots being 3/4 acre, and the vacant lot proposed to accommodate the horses which is 3 1/2 acres in size. He further explained that this vacant lot would house the horses to be used by both residences indicated above, stressing that the horses were not just for one residence, but would instead be used by two families. He added that he has never received complaints in the past regarding the maintenance of any horses he had previously maintained on this lot, and he submitted several letters from neighbors who were in favor of the request. In response to a question of the Commission, Mr. -Sutton said his brother and family were going to be moving into one of the residences and that they would consist of five members, while there were two members in his own family. Mr. Sutton further added that he wishes to breed selected animals occasionally and raise horses for his own personal enjoyment in addition to maintaining sufficient horses for family riding and friends' use. Edith Bostrom, 15 Sweetbay Road, was concerned about the additional traffic on her street, which is a private street and, therefore, not maintained by the City. Mr. Baker, 16 Limetree Lane, felt that the deed restrictions should be enforced and that this -request should -be placed before -the Property Owners' Association for consideration also. MV 9 0 The Commission explained to Mr. Baker that the action of this Commission does not supersede any private contract between property owners, but that enforcing them was a civil matter. Mr. Forrest Burke, 4 Kumquat Lane, Robert Maxwell, 7 Pomegranate Road, and Mr. Blunten, 20 Cinnamon Lane, were opposed because of their concerns over animal odors and flies and because they have experienced horses run- ning loose from time to time, adding that they -already have a problem existing with the Pony Club. The consensus among the commissioners following their discussion was that there was no information presented at the hearing which would sub- stantiate the finding that this permit would not be detrimental to the public health, etc. Commissioner Shaw felt that fifteen horses was ex- cessive, but that due to the large proposed site for the horses, she felt the Commission should approve the permit with the Staff recommenda- tion of only eight animals. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, Special Animal Permit #6 was denied based on the finding that the requested animals, at the location proposed, would jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise be detrimen- tal to the public health, safety, or general welfare. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg NOES: Shaw ABSENT: Blue Mr. Sutton was advised that this action may be appealed in writing to the City Council within ten (10) days of this decision. COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Shaw said that she would be on vacation at the time of the next Council meeting, and Mr. McTaggart agreed to attend the meeting of September /7 if there are any planning - related items on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT At 12:16 a.m., it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting to September 14, 1976.