Loading...
PC MINS 19770125(4-8) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 25, 1977 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairperson Shaw. PRESENT: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Rosenberg (left at 9:20 p.m.), Shaw_ ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Plan- ner Gary Weber. MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the minutes of the meeting of January 6, 1977, were unanimously approved as submitted. _ The Commission proposed the followinq changes to the minutes of January 11, 1977: 1) On page 1, under Communications, should read as follows: "Mr. Blue mentioned the decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the City of Arlington Heights, stating that low den- sity zoning per se was ruled not to be discriminatory to low or moderate income groups." 2) on page 2, paragraph 4, line 1, should read "The only other per- son wishing to be heard was Mrs. Kazarian, 30515 Via......" 3) On page 5, finding A, should read ".....this is a flag lot, and the orientation of the lot is not consistent with the other lots as they are all facing the other direction." On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the minutes of the meeting of January 11, 1977, were unanimously approved as amended above. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Blue, the minutes of the meeting of January 13, 1977, were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:40 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21 VARIANCE NO. 12 5640 West Crestridge Road Applicant: Otto Korver for Penin- sula Babtist Church hearing. Due to this situation, he null and void. Carl Anthony, 332 Herst Building, San Francisco, CA 94103, attorney, repre- senting Marcia Graham, said the Com- mission did not have the power to rule on this item, as the application was filed on November 3, more than forty (40) days before the first public felt that any action taken would be Director Hightower said she could not give a legal opinion, but felt this kind of finding would have to be made through litigation. Mrs. Shaw said a leqal opinion from the City Attorney could have been ob- tained had this been brought up prior to the meeting. The Commission decided to continue with the hearing and take action ori this item tonight. Public hearing was re -opened. Mr. Weber reviewed the background of the request, explained the revisions concerning the tower, indicating on the plans where the applicant had superimposed the revised tower on the existing elevations; and noted the following error in the staff report: under Resolution on the front page of the report dated January 25, should read ".....37 -foot height of the structure......", not "tower". Staff recommendation is for formal approval subject to specified conditions. Otto Korver, 1110 South Robinson Boulevard, Los Angeles, architect, showed renderings and, in response to Commission questions, discussed the tower as revised. Carl Anthony, 332 Herst Building, San Francisco, Ca 94103, attorney, said the Commission had expressed at its last meeting that the tower be lowered ten (10) feet, the revision is for seven (7) feet only, and the tower serves no purpose except for aesthetics. He said there was no buffering indicated in the plans, required to separate and divide the institutional area from residential areas. Edward Koch, 5671 Mistridge Drive, asked if the bells shown in the drawing would ring, as he would object to that. Mr. Korver said the bells would be non -ringing, decorative only. The public hearing was declared closed. The Commission pointed out that, as the minutes state, the ten (10) feet was an approximate figure; that the Commission was looking for an overall reduction; that the height of the tower is excluded from height restric- tions; and that the buffering referred to in the Code applied to walls, trees, or bushes, and did not apply when there was such a great difference in elevations. Some of the Commission had hoped for a greater reduction than seven (7) feet, but the majority felt since the applicant reversed the tower, it has amounted to a lowering-of'the most objectionable part of the tower; therefore, the reduction has been significant. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart to adopt Resolu- tion No. 77=�?., thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 21 and= - Variance No. 12, subject to the conditions as listed in Exhibit "A", with the following addition: "7. The.bells shall be non-functional bells only."; and subject to the following change to Section 5 of the resolu- tion: ".....sixty-eight (68) feet (as measured from the lowest point of the front elevation) and has been....." Roll call vote -was as follows: AYES: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: None Mrs. Shaw advised the audience that anyone in opposition has the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 41 Mrs. Shaw moved this item forward on 27002- San Ramon the agenda as another request for Applicant: V. and R. Mandel continuance has been made by the applicant, and there was someone in the audience regarding this item. Director Hightower said the applicant wishes a continuance because his geologist is ill and also because he plans to revise the plans. Mr. Mandel requested that the item be tabled for at least four (4) weeks or longer. Mr. John Feyk, 2727 San Ramon, requested that notices be sent to the property owners prior to the meeting. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried, this item was tabled indefinitely until such time as the applicant has submitted revised plans. P.C. MINUTES -2- 1/25/77 VARIANCE NO. 5 GRADING NO. 22 7449 Via Lorado Applicant: William Hauf tion to the visual impact problem. be continued until the applicant has the concerns previously identified. Mr. Weber reviewed the background of the request and discussed the revised plans, stating that staff has deter- mined that there is an error in the plans and that further revision is necessary to achieve a workable solu- Staff recommendation is that the item revised the grading plans to reflect William Hauf, owner of 7449 Via Lorado, said the previous plans showed an 82 -foot retaining wall and the revision shows one 32 -foot wall and one 3 -foot wall. The Commission and the applicant discussed the error, and Mrs.'Shaw sug- gested that the architect meet with Staff to determine whether there is an error and, if so, how to correct it. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve Grading Application No. 22, subject to the condition that the architect -- and and Staff work on the plans and that no wall height exceed five (5) feet. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 77-3, thereby approving Variance No. 5 based on the find- ings listed in the resolution. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: Blue ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31617 Mr. Weber reviewed the background of Crest Road at Highridge Road the request and said that due to con - Applicant: Presley of So. Calif. cerns expressed by the Commission at the last meeting, the project engineer has submitted additional information re drainage and sewerage. He said that the Public Works Director has re- quested a hydrology study and that the statements from the project engineer be confirmed with the County Flood Control District. Mr. Weber indicated the drainage on the map, and said the proposal would affect sixteen (16) lots draining into Altamira Canyon. He said the grading plan indicates a possible decrease rather than an increase in the drainage going into the canyon. Director Hightower explained that for years the County has been "looking into" this area, but that it is not a high priority item. The Commission stressed the critical nature of drainage into Altamira Canyon and felt a status report should be obtained from the Flood Control District, to be sure that they are taking everything into consideration. Joe Perring, Presley, 4600 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, said that in the master plan drainage study, the overall density of the area is considered for the ultimate population. He said they are trying not to alter the natural drainage courses and intend to construct velocity reducers and channel water away from inadequate areas. He suggested that Clark Leonard, the engineer, perform a hydrology study. The Commission expressed a strong desire to review the CC&Rs prior to approval, as they were concerned about the kind of homes to be built on these lots, whether the grading will be changed by the individual owners, the building height restrictions, landscaping requirements, architectural controls, and the preservation of the view corridor which currently exists on Crest Road. P.C. MINUTES -3- 1/25/77 RECESS At 9:20 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. with Mr. Rosenberg absent. Paul Walker, 7325 Via Loredo, said that whatever criteria applies to this development will also apply to the development on the adjacent property, owned by Palos Verdes Monaco, and that all problems brought out in this hearing will be taken into consideration. -In response to a question, Mr. Walker said there were no trails in their proposed plan. Harvey Brown, 29234 Beachside, pointed out that the City of Rolling Hills Estates was planning a lot of development with equestrian trails and he felt this should be taken into consideration. Mr. Weber said a conceptual trail system is shown in the General Plan, originally intended for equestrian trails, as well as others. He said the trail easements have been left on the map and it is up to the Commis- sion whether or not they remain. The Commission discussed keeping them as pedestrian trails, and some of the members felt it was important to have the trails for open space, jog- ging, hiking, or just enjoying the view, and felt that with proper planning there would be no problems. others were concerned it would become nothing but a nuisance with the trails being used as motorcycle trail-&;, and the City being responsible for maintaining the trails, and pointed out the need for providing emergency access to the entire area. The Commissioners con- curred that each of these concerns must be evaluated. The Commission felt that with the concern about views, drainage, etc., the applicant should present more than a rough grading plan, but rather a plan which is finalized as much as is reasonable. The applicant was directed to include in the hydrology study what type of velocity reducers were proposed, the current effect and the proposed effect on the canyon, and if there is going to be an increase in the pro- posed flow into Altamira Canyon, what mitigation measures were proposed. On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, this item was tabled to the next regular meeting. GRADING NO. Crownview, Applicant: 130 Lot 86, Tract 25376 Bill Robison for Gilbert Sedillo primary staff is eight (8) tion is that Mr. Weber reviewed the staff report, explaining the amount of cut and fill, the maximum depth of cut and height of fill, and said that two-thirds (2/3) of the lot will remain in a natural condition. He listed the concerns as the visual impact,of the retaining wall which feet, as measured from the highest point. Staff recommenda- the application be continued, pending revisions. Gilbert Sedillo, landowner, said the lot was very steep, and that the house has been designed within the contours of the lot as much as possible. The Commission questioned Mr. Sedillo about the driveway, turn -around, and view impact to neighboring properties. Re the 72 -foot side yard setback as required in the CC&Rs, Mr. Sedillo said they met with the homeowners group and that the plans will be revised to reflect the change in the setbacks. The public portion of the meeting was closed. The Commission was concerned about the effect on the wall location and its height caused by moving the house over 22 feet to comply with the setback requirements. They felt since the Fire Department likes a 28 -foot radius turn -around, the proposed 30 -foot area was not unreasonable. They dis- cussed the wall height and its appearance and suggested softening the appearance of the wall by filling the downhill side to give it a lower appearance and then landscaping the area. They agreed that a five-foot wall would be acceptable as viewed from below. P.C. MINUTES -4- 1/25/77 On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 130 was continued to the next meeting at which time revised plans showing correct figures will be reviewed with the wall height reduced and softened in appearance as discussed above. SIGN APPEAL Director Hightower gave the background 6760 Los Verdes Drive of the request, the location and size Palos Verdes Apartments of the subject signs, and explained the abatement process. Staff recom- mendation is for approval of the office sign as is, and the major identification sign if reduced to five (5) feet high, and that proper sign permits be obtained by the applicant. Lee Henderson, 6742 Los Verdes Drive, said the major sign is at an eight (8) foot height because of the five (5) foot wall along Hawthorne Boule- vard, and felt there was no other practical place to put the sign. He said the sign was their only means of promotion, as they use no other form of advertising. The Commission discussed the major sign, some feeling it was not objec- tionable, that it blended in with the landscaping so well, and that due to the five (5) foot wall, if the sign were lowered, it may not be effective. Others felt that the Commission should either go by the Code or change it. On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, this item was tabled to the next meeting, to allow the entire Commission the opportunity to view the sign from Hawthorne Boulevard. VARIANCE NO. 13 Mr. Weber gave the background of the 5727 Wildbriar request which is for approval of a Applicant: Robert Schimmick deck within the Code -required rear and side yard setbacks. He described the project and explained that al- though the location of the deck allows the applicant an increased view of the South Bay, it appears to be violating the privacy of the lower resi- dences. Staff recommendation is for denial based on the grounds that appropriate findings cannot be made and that the applicant be required to remove the illegal structure. The public hearing was declared open. Robert Schimmick, 5727 Wildbriar, applicant, said he moved to this area because of the privacy and the quiet way of life, and that he purchased this particular home for the -view. He said he wanted the deck because with the pool, there was no other yard area, and that he got the idea for the deck after seeing the one across the street from him. He said the hillside leading down to the neighbors' yards below is not taken care of and has deteriorated. He submitted pictures of the neighbor's decking, his own decking, and copies of a relevant section of the CC&Rs to the Commission. The Commission pointed out that the City is not in the position to enforce CC&Rs and that, in any case, this section was in violation of the City's Code. They also explained that the neighbor's deck was either built prior to the City's incorporation or was built illegally, as a variance was never granted. They explained to the applicant that the required findings must be found. Mr. Schimmick said there is less than one foot of walking area around one side of the pool which creates a dangerous situation and constitutes un- usual circumstances, and pointed out that there was a similar deck across the street. Speaking in opposition were William Dunkerly, 26108 Barkstone Drive; Mary Nimmo, 5752 Wildbriar Drive; Marga Weber, 26215 Barkstone Drive; and Pat Campeau, 26126 Barkstone Drive. The main concern expressed was the privacy of the neighbors, and they felt this was a definite invasion on their privacy. The public hearing was declared closed. P.C. MINUTES -5- 1/25/77 Director Hightower explained that the County permitted decks and pools to extend into the setbacks, but the City Code allows only pools, not ele- vated decks. The Commission also expressed concern about the loss of privacy and felt they could not make the necessary findings. They pointed out that the expense could have been avoided had the applicant applied for the proper permits prior to construction. Mr. McTaggart further pointed out that, as the applicant stated earlier, he could stand in the same spot with or without the deck if his purpose was to look down into the neighbor's yards; but explained that, by law, the Commission had to make the required find- ings in order to approve a variance, and could not do that in this case. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Blue, to deny Variance No. 13 on the grounds that the appropriate findinqs could not be made, and further directed that the illegal structure be removed within sixty (60) days of the decision. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: Rosenberg Mrs. Shaw explained that this decision would be final unless appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days. STAFF REPORTS Director Hiqhtower said that the grading re -draft had lost its pri- ority because of the Coastal Plan, and is, therefore, not yet completed. COMMISSION REPORTS The Commission decided to hold a work session on February 3 on the Antenna Ordinance, not involving staff work, since the grading re -draft was not ready. ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn the meeting to Thursday, February 3, 1977, 7:30 p.m.