PC MINS 19761109# 0 (6q)
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
November 9, 1976
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairperson Shaw.
PRESENT: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart (arrived at 7:39),
Rosenberg, Shaw
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate
Planner Gary Weber.
MINUTES APPROVAL The Commission proposed the
following changes to the minutes
of October 12: on page two, under
Minor Exception Permit #11 Appeal, that Mr. Jones be referred to as
the appellant instead of the applicant; on page three, third paragraph
under Grading Revisions, should read: "The public hearing was declared
opened."
On motion by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Blue, the minutes of
October 12, 1976, were unanimously approved, as amended above.
The following change was proposed for the minutes of October 26:
last page, last paragraph, should read: ".......to adjourn the meeting
to October 28, 1976."
On motion by Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, the minutes of
October 26, 1976, were unanimously approved, as amended above.
Regarding the work session minutes, the following change was pro-
posed for the meeting of November 1: No. (2) should read ".......slope
(60a?) upon which no grading will be allowed, and"
On motion by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, the minutes of
the October 21, October 28, and November 1, 1976, work sessions, were
unanimously approved, as amended above.
On motion by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously
carried, the order of the agenda items was changed so that Variance No. 10
would be next.
VARIANCE NO. 10 Mrs. Shaw opened the public hearing,
3264 Parkhurst Drive and Mr. Weber gave the background of
Applicant: Burt & Margaret Laur the request and described the project
and its location on the property,
saying that the wall varies in height
from 64 inches to 42 inches. Staff recommendation is for denial for the
reasons listed in the staff report. Mr. Weber added that if the Commission
approves the variance, the motion should contain appropriate findings.
In answer to questions from the Commission, Mr. Weber explained
that the block wall construction was not completed when the inspector
apprised the applicant of the potential code violations, and that City
notification was made both verbally and by letter (the first one dated
June 7, 1976). At the request of the Commission, Mr. Weber read the
letter (dated June 21) to the applicant from the Crestmont Community
Association pertaining to its requirement for reviewing and approving
all construction.
Speaking in favor of the project were: Stuart Oyama,
3258 Parkhurst; Mr. and Mrs. John L. Barret, 3274 Parkhurst; and
Robert Manning, 3265 Parkhurst. They each felt the new wall was an
improvement, from a safety standpoint as well as aesthetically, and
that the height was necessary in order to contain the applicant's dogs.
Margaret Laur, the applicant, stated she did not realize they
needed approval for a replacement of an already existing wall. She
showed pictures of the new wall to the Commission.
Art Oshita, contractor, said he believed the construction of the
block wall was completed before June, but that the wrought iron was not
done at the time of the City inspection. He said he did not check the
City's regulations because he was only replacing a falling wall.
In response to questions regarding the difference between the
new and old wall, Mr. Weber showed pictures of both.
Jack Spahn, 3511 Newridge Drive, Vice -President of the Crestmont
Community Association, said although the wall was attractive, the appli-
cant did not submit plans to the Board as required in the CC&R's, and
he did not feel that the applicant meets the findings required for the
variance.
Dean Dunlavey, 3255 Parkhurst, showed pictures and also spoke in
opposition, saying he felt the wall was not consistent with the rest of
the neighboring properties.
.Speaking in rebuttal, Mr. Oyama pointed out that the adjacent
properties were most affected, and these property owners were in favor.
Mr. Barret said the wall is the same size and in the same location as
the previous wall.
Sutter Kunkel, 3271 Parkhurst, said as a member of the Association,
he wished the applicant had taken the required routine steps; but as a
neighbor, this is just the replacement of a wall which has been there for
years and is an improvement over the old one.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Mr. Rosenberg pointed out that Section 9815 of the City's Code
states there shall be no restoration of damaged non -conforming structures
if the cost exceeds 500 of the replacement value.
The Commission discussed the difficulty in fencing across the
circular driveway behind the setback and the fence height which was
necessary to serve the purpose of containing the dogs in the front yard,
but the general consensus was that it was impossible to find that all of
the conditions required by the ordinance were met.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Blue, Variance No. 10
was denied on the grounds that justification of the conditions as set
forth in Section 9731 of the Development Code has not been shown. Roll
call vote was as follows:
AYES: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mrs. Shaw explained that this action may be appealed to the City Council
within ten (10) days.
RECESS
At 8:45 p.m.
called. The
at 9:00 p.m.
present.
11/9/76 P. C. Minutes -2-
a brief recess was
meeting reconvened
with the same members
•
GRADING
Code Amendment #2
the next regular meeting, and a work
item on tonight's agenda.
•
On motion by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded
by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing on the Grading
Ordinance Revisions was continued to
session was scheduled as the last
COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes reported on the November 3
City Council meeting. He said that
Mr. Hauf made a presentation requesting
that the Council alleviate his situation (regarding grading). He said the
City Attorney is to report back to the Council on possible alternatives.
Regarding the Horowitz appeal (Variance No. 6), Mr. Hughes said the
Council could not make the necessary findings and denied the appeal. Mr.
Rosenberg requested a copy of the state mandated criteria; and the Com-
mission felt this should be reviewed, as well as the City's criteria, the
zoning code requirements, and variance versus minor exception permits.
Mr. Rosenberg volunteered to work on this.
Mr. Hughes continued, saying that Mr. Bradley's request for a
refund (Height Variation No. 31) was continued because the applicant was
not present. He said the appeal on Grading #56 (using the same plans)
was tabled until the next meeting when the City Council planned a work
session on grading, and that Parcel Map No. 6660 was tabled because the
applicant was not present and had indicated that he wished to appeal the
condition to have to post bond.
Mr. Hughes discussed the Council's comments on the memo from the
Commission (dated November 1) titled "Code Amendment No. 2 - Grading".
He said the Council indicated that they felt the Commission was proceeding
in the right direction.
GRADING ORDINANCE WORK SESSION The Commission discussed standards
versus criteria. Mr. Hughes said he
had mentioned to the Council that
the Commission was thinking of moving away from standards to a criteria
approach because of the difficulties they have experienced. The Commission
further discussed setting strict maximums for driveway slopes, not per-
mitting the creation of slopes steeper than those existing, and limiting
the height of retaining walls. It was suggested that they allow enough
grading for development on geologically safe lots of record with over 35%
slopes, but arrive at some maximum percentage (60% was suggested) where
grading would not be allowed.
A work session was scheduled for Thursday evening, November 11,
at 8:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:08 p.m. it was moved, seconded
and carried to adjourn the meeting to
November 11, 1976 at 8:00 p.m.
11/9/76 P. C. Minutes -3-