Loading...
PC MINS 19771011M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 11, 1977 The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Keith Turner. MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of September 27, 1977, were approved with the following amendments: page 2, paragraph 6, line 3, should read "...the CC&Rs parallel the CC&Rs..."; page 4, paragraph 4, line 3, should read "...of 4 units be substituted for 12 units..." TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33358 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25 the Commission granted conceptual Southeast corner of Palos Verdes approval subject to certain changes. Drive South & Seahill He reviewed the revisions and said Applicant: Mercury Enterprises both of them have been made. Staff Landowner: Western Brass Dev. Co. recommendation was for approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution, and that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative tract map subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution, with one change to condition #24 as follows: "...to cover costs of full improvements (or repairs), as determined by the City, for one-half of the public..." Mr. McTaggart explained that the public hearing had been closed at the last meeting. Mr. Weber said the Fire Department felt that the overall length of the two drives was not considered long enough to warrant turn-arounds. Mr. McTaggart felt the roof lineoshould be included on the plans. Mrs. Bacharach asked about archaeological sites. Mr. Weber said he re- viewed a report from the archaeologist which stated that based on .further studies, there was no -evidence of a substantial cultural site. The Commission expressed concern about the tennis court lighting and did not feel the information they received was sufficient or that there had been enough discussion. They felt they should see a plan before approval. At the request of the applicant, a straw vote was taken which indicated the majority of the Commission would not approve the lighting without first seeing a plan. RECESS At 8:15 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m. with the same members present. George Eastom, Mercury Enterprises, said they would like to remove the re- quest for lighting from this application and would apply at a later date if they so desired. It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate conditions #12, 13 and 14 of Exhibit "A" for the conditional use permit and to add a condition limiting the tennis court hours to 7:00 a.m. until dusk, and that there be no illumination or lighting of the tennis court unless an amendment to this conditional use permit is approved for such. It was the consensus of the Commission to add a condition to establish ridge elevations on the tentative tract map. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolu- tion P.C. No. 77-20, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 25 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", as amended above. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 33358, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", with the amendment to condition #24 as suggested by Mr. Weber in his staff report. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33093 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 29 West of the intersection of Island View & Ocean Crest Applicant: South Bay Engineering Landowner: Omer K. Tingle on density transfer, which he felt he would discuss this further with opinion. Mr. Weber reviewed the concerns of the Commission at the last meeting and responded to them. He discussed the proposed access road and two alternative routes; the two alterna- tive designs for the interior road system; off-street parking; and the interpretation of the City Attorney would be a policy decision. He said the City Attorney to obtain further The public hearing was opened, and Mr. McTaggart explained the procedure to the audience. Russ McGuire, South Bay Engineering, discussed the internal street patterns, roadway alternatives, and guest or recreational parking. He said he had hoped for a more clear interpretation from the City Attorney. He discussed some alternative proposals, and said in this proposal the maximum street grade at any point is 14 percent. The following people spoke in opposition to the request: `Donald Galbraith, 6542 Ocean Crest, president of Seagate Homeowners Association; Fay Fowler, 6542 Ocean Crest; Frances Marks, 6542 Ocean Crest; Sarah Padgett, 6644 Locklenna Lane; Mr. Itabashi, 6632 Locklenna Lane; Mr. Boyajian, 6650 Lock- lenna Lane; and Jack Tremler, 6542 Ocean Crest. The main concern expressed was the effect this project would have on the already congested street. There was also concern expressed about the density of the area, drainage problems, the noise and atmospheric pollution which would be created by this development, narrow no -curb streets, and the possibility of view obstruction. Omer Tingle, 26846 Basswood, applicant, presented a copy of the escrow in- structions which the Commission had requested at the last meeting. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to a later date. Mr. Hughes felt it was inappropriate to place single family residences in that area. He felt it should be developed according to its zoning. P.C. MINUTES -2- 10/11/77 0 0 Mr. Rosenberg felt if the applicant wished to develop single family dwel- lings in an RM -6 zone, there should first be an application for a zone change and all requirements should be complied with. The other commissioners concurred with Mr. Hughes and Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. McGuire said they would work on alternative plans and asked for some direction of the Commission. Mr. McTaggart requested information on who was responsible for maintenance of the existing roadway. The Commission directed the applicant to explore alternative #2 for road access or come up with another solution; work on widening the street and possibly providing sidewalks on at least one side; and provide a different development theme, such as a townhouse -type development, and to stay with a 15 and 23 unit development unless the applicant wishes to wait for a policy decision on density transfer. RECESS At 10:10 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:16 p.m. with the same members present. VARIANCE NO. 22 Mr. Weber said the request was to 2612 Via Subida allow a fence exceeding 42 inches in Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Grickis height within the street side setback. He reviewed the project, area and site description, the zoning, and the background of the request, and explained that there was also a request for a minor exception permit on a portion of the fence. He reviewed the re- quired findings and said staff recommended denial of the variance because all of the required findings cannot be made. However, he said Minor Ex- ception Permit No. 23 was hereby approved. The public hearing was opened. Joseph Grickis, applicant, spoke briefly about the project, saying it was an asset to the neighborhood and would be very expensive to move the fence. He said he had received a letter from the City saying the fence could be up to five feet in that location, but he did not have a copy of the letter with him. Staff could find no evidence that such a letter was sent. As there were no additional speakers, on motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. After Commission discussion, Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to deny Variance No. 22 based on the failure of the Commission to make the necessary findings for exceptional circumstances or hardship, as per Section 9731 of the Development Code. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. McTaggart advised the applicant of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, that the fence be either removed or lowered to meet the height limit within thirty days after the appeal period of thirty days after the disposition of the City Council, if appealed. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart None None P.C. MINUTES -3- 1:0/11/77 Mrs. Bacharach felt perhaps there should be a Code amendment because she did not feel the intent of the ordinance was meant for situations like this. VARIANCE NO. 23 Mr. Turner said this request was to 6217 Via Subida allow a wall exceeding 42 inches in Applicant: Dr. & Mrs. Parsa height in the front setback. He re- viewed the application, site location, zoning, and the background of the re- quest, and reviewed the required findings. Staff recommendation is for denial based on lack of justification for findings A and B. Public hearing was opened. Kirk Gillette, representing the applicant, said approval from the Palos Verdes Art Jury had been received. He said a 42 -inch fence offers no security for the -applicant. Dr. Parsa, applicant, explained that security was his ma3or concern. Mr. Rosenberg felt it was the responsibility of contractors to be aware of the City's Codes in order to properly advise their clients. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. After discussion, Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to deny Variance No. 23 due to the inability of the Commission to make the necessary findings for exceptional circumstances or hardship, as required by Section 9731 of the Development Code. It was further moved that the applicant be given thirty days from the expiration of the appeal period or final determination of the City Council, if appealed, to either remove or lower the fence to meet the height limit. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. McTaggart advised the applicant of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower said while at the League of California Cities' Confer- ence she visited Tiburon re the tree trim ordinance. She said they appeared to have more vertical development and that she did not see any evidence of topping or thinning of the trees. COMMISSION REPORTS Friday in the City of Commerce. 0W414M)I0100it Saturday, October 22, 1977, at 11:30 Mrs. Bacharach announced a meeting of the Los Angeles County League of Women Voters which would be held on At 11:23 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn the meeting to a work session and field trip on a.m., to start at Mr. Rosenberg's home. P.C. MINUTES -4- 10/11/77