Loading...
PC MINS 19761012M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 12, 1976 The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairperson Shaw. PRESENT: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Keith Turner. MINUTES APPROVAL Mrs. Shaw proposed amending the minutes of September 28 on page two, paragraph one, beginning with line six, change as follows: ....... mix the General Plan calls for; the high expenditures required by the future homeowners' association due to inord- inate amount of deferred maintenance; and whether the phased......." On motion by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, the minutes of September 28, 1976, were unanimously approved as amended above. VARIANCE NO. 9 Mr. Weber explained that the request Hawthorne Boulevard, eastline, was for the construction of a double - between Crest Rd. & Rhone Dr. faced directional sign on Cachan and Applicant: Orange Coast Sign Co. for the continued use of an existing double-faced directional sign on Sattes. He reviewed the size, height and location of signs. Staff recommendation was for denial of the vari- ance, but that the existing sign may remain as a legal non -conforming sign until the amortization period has ended. Merl Butler, Butler Housing, 1691 Kettering, Irvine, and Ken McNeil, sales manager, Seaview Properties, 6375 Sattes Drive, spoke in favor of this re- quest, saying that the signs would aid potential buyers in finding the homes. They explained that they requested these temporary signs only un- til these homes are sold and estimated the project would be completed in one year. As there were no other speakers, Mrs. Shaw closed the audience participa- tion for this item. During Commission discussion, concerns were expressed regarding the encouragement of "U" turns on Hawthorne Boulevard upon see- ing a sign reading "Back to Crest" and the size of the proposed sign. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, that Variance No. 9 be denied based on the fact that it is in violation of Section 9674 of the City's Development Code, but that existing sign be allowed to re- main (per staff's recommendation). Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: None Mrs. Shaw advised the applicant that this decision may be appealed to the City Council within ten (10) days. ANTENNA REVISIONS (Code Amendment No. 1) Mr. McTaggart suggested that this item be placed at the end of the agenda, under Commission Reports. As there were no objections, Mrs. Shaw so ordered. P.C. -1- 10/12/76 MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT #11 APPEAL Fred Klink, 30710 Via Rivera, neigh - 30707 Rue de la Pierre bor of the applicant, requested a I Applicant: Gordon & Betty Jones continuance as his wife was unable to attend tonight's hearing to speak in opposition to the project. It was pointed out that the Commission was in receipt of a letter from Mrs. Klink stating her objections, and the Commission decided to hear the matter as scheduled. Mr. Weber gave the background and briefly described the pro3ect for an en- closed whirlpool, explaining that the application for a minor exception permit was denied because staff could not find evidence of hardship or practical difficulties. Staff recommends that the denial be upheld because proper findings cannot be made and because of the infringement of site pri- vacy to the adjacent property. In answer to Commission questions re the decking approval in the original permit, Mr. Turner explained that the City goes by the County building code whereby decking less than 30 inches high can be built into the sideyard. The Commission wondered why the applicant was willing to move the structure back six inches, but not eighteen inches. Mr. Weber explained it was to allow seating around the whirlpool. Gordon Jones, ZVic=,Iscussed the initial error of the property line, pointing out that if he had known this was incorrect in the beginning, he would have constructed this structure elsewhere on the lot, adding it would be a financial hardship to change the location at this time. He showed pictures to the Commission taken at different angles from inside and around the project, and submitted a letter from the previous owners of the adja- cent property, H. R. Cummins and A. E. Cummins. Mr. Klink, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the request, stating his main ob3ection was the invasion of privacy, as this was no longer a deck, but a room. He did not feel the value of the whirlpool would be lowered if the structure were moved behind the setback. At the Commission's invitation, Mr. Klink then reviewed the pictures submitted by the applicant. Mr. Jones said the cost involved prohibited him from requesting a variance to allow the structure to encroach eighteen (18) inches into the setback, but explained that if the structure were moved more than six (6) inches, the beam in the understructure would be right into the pool. He also said he would be willing to place the windows higher in order to ensure as much privacy as possible for his neighbor. The Commission questioned the Zffc-_a­nt about the existing fence and hedge, and then closed the public hearing. After Commission discussion, the con- sensus was that enclosing the permissible decking does not worsen the loss of privacy to the neighbor, and that they could mitigate the existing loss of privacy by requiring the window sills to be raised and the existing hedge to be maintained. They also felt that in this case, an honest mis- take had been made regarding the property line. On motion by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, the appeal of Minor Exception Permit #11 was granted subject to the following conditions: 1. That the windows be not less than twenty-four (24) inches from the top of the deck. 2. That the structure be allowed to encroach one (1) foot into the sideyard setback. 3. That the foundation be covered. Mr. McTaggart moved and Mr. Blue agreed to amend the above motion to in- clude the following finding: That the denial of the minor exception permit would necessitate moving the whirlpool for which a permit was already granted, thereby causing a hardship. P. C. -2- 10/12/76 Roll call vote on the above motion, as amended, was as follows: AYES: Blue, NOES: None ABSENT: None RECESS GRADING REVISIONS (Code Amendment No. 2) (Public Hearing) Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw whether or not the intent can be the existing ordinance generates loop holes and language problems, stand, and volume formula. At 9:15 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Turner reviewed the background and gave a brief presentation on the prob- lems with the existing ordinance in- cluding: the possible legal problems, no flexibility of interpretation, and carried out. Other problems include: too much of a workload for the Commission, difficult for average citizen to under - Mr. Weber explained the alternatives to this proposal would be to have no grading ordinance, a subjective type of ordinance (where the decision - maker determines policy), a continuation of what is existing, or a varia- tion of the proposed ordinance. He reviewed the proposed changes, explain- ing that the Code should be easier to understand by making the formulas easier to use, that automatic exemptions should be clearly identified, certain findings should be clearly specified to allow variation from the criteria, potential inequities in fee determination should be eliminated. He presented visual illustrations and charts comparing what existing and proposed ordinances would allow under several different conditions. The public hearing was declared _cr . Tim Burrell, 4380 Exultant, felt the word "findings" should not be used in this ordinance, and the signature of a civil engineer should not be re- quired. He asked questions of staff regarding the requirement for open space in its natural state, volume formula, and unnatural 35 percent slopes, i.e. those created by road construction. Bob Sims, Engineering Service Corp., suggested a minimum pad area, perhaps 200 square feet, for patio, sideyards, etc. He also felt drainage should be mentioned, and definitions should be provided for words such as "reasonable" and "scarring". Burt Sanders, Butler Housing, expressed concern over building on lots with 35+ percent slopes and illustrated on the blackboard the problems created with trying to meet all the requirements when dealing with a house with either a downhill or uphill slope. Bill Hauf (7449 Via Lorado lot) felt the access around a house and a mini- mum yard area should be addressed, perhaps a radius of eight to ten feet around the home or a minimum of 500 square feet. Paul Nibarger, 7310 Via Marie Celeste, said he has a six-foot usable rear yard and cannot expand it or place a planter box around his deck because the slope is 35 percent. On motion by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, this item was continued to a later meeting. A workshop session on the grading revisions was scheduled for Thursday, October 21, at 7:30 p.m. RECESS STAFF REPORTS At 10:50 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:55 p.m. with the same members present. Director Hightower explained that the City Council has referred the Variance No. 6 Appeal back to the Planning P.C. -3- 10/12/76 Commission for its review of the newly submitted plans and for its recom- mendation. She said staff was arranging to have the City Attorney, possibly at the next meeting, discuss the height variation criteria with the Commission. Director Hightower further reviewed the results of the workshop session with the City Council, listing the priorities set down at that meeting. She said also whether or not to change the height of walls from five feet to six feet would be initiated with the next code amendment. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes reported on the last City Council meeting at which Tentative Tract No. 32614 was heard. He said the Council made one minor change upon approval. Mr. Hughes distributed some information on the Antenna Revisions, includ- ing the solution of using structural volume in determining acceptable an- tennas. Mr. McTaggart also passed out some of his suggestions. The Com- mission decided not to schedule a work session until they are further along with the grading revisions. Mr. Rosenberg suggested that the Commission discuss the matter of appeals from administrative decisions. The Commission discussed the Council's desire to receive a concept draft of code amendments prior to any Commission public hearings so they can review them and perhaps have a joint meeting with the Commission. Re the grading ordinance, it was agreed to send a copy of the draft revisions to the Council members after the workshop changes are made. ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting to October 26, 1976. P.C. -4- 10/12/76