Loading...
PC MINS 1977112203) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting November 22, 1977 The The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart. Present: Bacharach, Hughes, McTaggart Absent: Hinchliffe, Rosenberg Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber and Assistant Planner Keith Turner. MINUTES APPROVAL 8, 1977 were approved as submitted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 19 Highridge and Hawthorne Applicant: Cayman Development Company be completed within two years. six-month extension. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of'the meeting of November Mr. Weber said the conditional use permit had been approved on December 13, 1976, and that one of the conditions required that construction be completed to the point of a foundation inspection within one year and that construction He said the applicant's letter requests a No one wished to speak on this matter, and the Commission briefly discussed the request. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the Commission extended for a period of six months that section of the conditional use permit which requires a foundation inspection within one year and completion of the proj-ect within two years. ZONE CHANGE NO. 2 Lots 1,2,3,16 & 17 of Tract 28750 Peacockridge & Highridge Roads. Applicants: Tise, Inc. C & B Properties R. Blumenthal zoning designation on the offical sub3ect lots. Mr. Weber said approval of the Zone Change was the final step in the procedure initiated by the Council in January, 1976. He said the request would change the subject lots from RS -4 to a 5 or 6 unit per acre designation on the zoning map. Staff recommended that the commission recommend to the Council that the zoning map be changed to RM -6 for the Mr. McTaggart reviewed the public hearing procedures and opened the hearing. Gene Leming, Tise, Inc., gave a brief presentation, pointing out the difficulties in obtaining a loan for a single family residence because the property is contiguous with high density property. F � Speaking in opposition to the request were: Ken de Graaf, 28304. Lunada Ridge Drive; Joe Bentley, 6009 Scotmist Drive; De De Hicks, 6120 Scotmist Drive, president of the Stoneridge Homeowners Association; and Bob Wyzen- beck, 11 Via Seville, Rolling Hills. Their main concerns were the poten- tial height in a multiple zone, subsequent lack of privacy for the neigh- boring properties, possible view obstruction, and the desire to keep light corridors between structures. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said objections heard in the above testimony appeared to be based on the assumption that if the property is zoned for multiple use, the maximum 30 -foot height would automatically be allowed. He pointed out that a conditional use permit is required and can be very restrictive, and would allow for more City control over the development of the property. He asked if there had been any response from the City Attorney or the Park and Recreation Committee re obtaining a portion or all of the lots for use as a park. Mr. Weber said he was not aware of any response from the City Attorney, but that the Park and Recreation Committee would be considering this in the near future. After further Commission discussion, Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt Resolution P.C. NO. 77-23 as presented by staff, recommending to the City Council that the zoning designation of the subject property be changed to RM -6. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe, Rosenberg HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 71 APPEAL Mr Turner reviewed the request and its 12 Packet Road background, stating that staff approved Applicants: E. Lam & M. Lou the request based on no view obstruction Appellant: Klaus Landers on October 27, prior to the Council decision involving the applied findings for height variation applications. He said the staff decision was appealed on November 4, and summarized the appellant's concerns re airflow, light, and invasion of privacy. Based on the change in required findings, staff recommended that the appeal be granted, thereby denying the project, based on its incompatibility with the surrounding area. Should the Commission approve the project, staff recommended two conditions: 1) that the applicant be requested to locate windows so as to mitigate the privacy problem and 2) that the applicant submit proof of the required five-foot setback or apply for a minor exception permit, if the new construction will encroach (whether or not the setback is five -feet was being questioned by the appellant). Public participation was opened. Klaus Landers, 10 Packet Road, said his main objection was the location of the addition, as it was proposed at the closest point to his home. In addition to the loss of privacy, he was concerned about the noise factor. He stressed it was the nearness of the addition that concerned him. He also felt that because this addition was separate from the rest of the house (having a separate entrance), in the future it had the potential of being used as a separate dwelling unit. He said this problem already existed in the neighborhood. P.C. MINUTES -2- 11/22/77 Mr. Gnann, 7 Packet Road, was opposed for the same reasons as stated by Mr. Landers. Walter Simes, president of the West Portuguese Bend Association, said the Association had granted tentative approval on the first of October, and later rescinded that approval because final plans had not been submitted per their requirements. He said at the time of approval, they had only the front and side elevations and were not aware of the separate entrance to the addition. Mr. Hughes questioned why tentative approval was given if the Association requires final plans. He asked if staff requires more detailed drawings than what was presented. Mr. Turner said staff does not need architectural plans for determination of a height variation. Also speaking in opposition were: Hans Engel, 3213 Barkentine; Bill Gussman, 11 Packet Road; Jack Sisk, 15 Barkentine; Bob Pelton, 2 Packet Road, and Mrs. Nerko, 6 Packet Road. Their concerns were the same as expressed by the other speakers. Elizabeth Lam, applicant, said she would place the windows high to avoid a privacy problem and already changed the design so that the roof slants down to its lowest point (19 feet),- on the side facing the Landers.1 residence. She discussed other changes proposed and briefly reviewed the written presentation she had submitted to the Commission. She explained the difficulties of trying to place the addition elsewhere. She said if the request was denied she could build within the 16 -foot height limit, but that the structure would not be as architecturally pleasing. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, public participation was closed. Mrs. Bacharach was concerned about the closeness of the proposed structure and the way it appears to tower over the neighbor's house. Mr Hughes said there was nothing in the findings related to the loss of privacy, and he was concerned that the Commission may be falling into the role of an architectural jury. He felt something more detailed than rough sketches were appropriate for the Commission's review to enable the Commission to determine the project's compatibility with the neighboring structures. He suggested continuing this item until detailed plans are available. The other Commissioners concurred and Mr. McTaggart asked if the applicant could submit these plans to staff prior to the next regular meeting. Mr. Turner indicated staff would need them by the Wednesday prior to that meeting. Mrs. Lam said the plans would be ready at that time. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, this item was tabled to the next meeting. Mr. McTaggart instructed the audience that there would be no further notification on this item. RECESS At 9:40 pati. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. with the same members present. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the order of the next two agenda items was changed. P.C. MINUTES -3- 11/22/77 REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF CODE Mr. Weber referred to the two letters AMENDMENT (SIGNING) requesting that the City amend the sign section of the Development Code. He said the first step would be to initiate such an amendment. Staff recommended that the Commission initiate a code amendment to Section 9673 of the Development Code. Bob Rockoff, broker, Roberts Realty, discussed the background of their request and their reason for forming a sign committee. He said the result of the sign committee meeting was that they are not against the City's ordinance, but they are opposed to -the way it is being enforced, as they felt the City was not picking up "by -owner" signs. They wanted equal enforcement and felt people should be cited and fined for illegal signs. Mr. Hughes was concerned that the sign ordinance was being violated with lead-in signs, and pointed out that these violations were not occurring in the other peninsula cities. He felt there was a definite need for enforcement or a change in the policy. He wished to urge the City Council to take a stand on strong sign enforcement. He said he was not opposed to the requested change in the ordinance. Mrs. Bacharach and Mr. McTaggart concurred with Mr. Hughes. Karl Rauch, president of the Rolling Hills Board of Realtors, read the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance, making one change as follows: "...only between the hours of 12 and dusk" Tom Johnson, president of the Palos Verdes Estates Board of Realtors, said the principle in this proposal is similar to that of the City of Palos Verdes Estates. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the code amendment concerning signing was initiated. Discussion of uniform enforcement of the Sign Ordinance was postponed to the end of the meeting under Commission Reports. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33206 Mr. Weber reviewed the request, pro - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 cedural requirements, area and pro3ect San Pedro Hill--Cr-^est Road (East) description, zoning, and project con - Applicant: S & S Construction Co.- siderations. He discussed the project Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties in relation to the General Plan, Develop- ment Code and zoning map and reviewed the chart included in the staff report. He reviewed the access and roads and the advantages and disadvantages of making Crest a private road, and further discussed proposed street standards and emergency access. He reviewed the proposed grading plan, the overlay control districts, and radiation hazard. The public hearing was opened. George. -Putnam, vice-president of S & S Construction Company, said the revised plans showed 76 lots, he discussed private use of Crest Road, and said the revised plans show the roads have been enlarged to 28 feet. Ralph Martin, 3293 Crownview Drive, of Richardson, Nagy and Martin, said they wished to take advantage of the view to the east and tried to cluster the development as much as possible. He discussed single loaded roads, parking, grading, and felt there should be some flat recreational area on each lot. He made a slide presentation for the Commission. Mr. Hughes asked what site's location to the plans be submitted. mitigating measures were proposed considering the radar site. He also requested that alternative P.C. Minutes -4- 11/22/77 Mrs. Bacharach was concerned about possible TV interference and any effects on appliances. Mr. McTaggart questioned the applicant about recreational areas. Mr. Putnam said a swimming pool would not be compatible with this develop- ment, but perhaps tennis courts and a jacuzzi were feasible. The owner of 3377 Crownview was concerned about the access, and requested parking along Crest if Crest Road is to be the primary access. Sutter Conklin, Crestmount Homeowners Association, was concerned about traffic and noise from the traffic. George Perkovich, 3242 Parkhurst, expressed concern about the height of the proposed homes. David White, 3506 Newridge, was concerned about the traffic impact, and recommended a stop sign at the intersection of Lucania and Crest Road. Bob Bershard, 3111 Deluna Drive, was concerned about the distance between the homes, and was opposed to making more of Crest Road private. Mr. Putnam said, as requested, he would submit information on alternatives, areas of recreational facilities, and emergency access. Re the private road, he said they would go either way. Mr. Hughes said it appeared the majority of the Commission was not in favor of private roads. He requested information on how their half of Crest Road would be handled. Mr. Putnam said he would prepare a sketch showing the effect it would have on the hill. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to another time. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber reported that the Coastal Commission would be holding a hearing on the Coastal Plan on January 9, 1978 in Huntington Beach. Mr. Weber confirmed that the continued public hearing on the tree trimming ordinance would be on the December 13 agenda, and that the Commission's second meeting in December would be held on the 21st rather than the 27th. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes questioned who was going to draft a letter per the Commission's discussion at the last meeting con- cerning the church's lack of parking and subsequent problems near the proposed Seahill tract. Mr. McTaggart said Director Hightower should compose a letter reflecting the feelings of the Commission on that subject. Re uniform enforcement of the sign ordinance, the Commission discussed the possibility of having the Sheriff's Department handle it. Mr. McTaggart said he would like a policy from the City Attorney re equal treatment and directed staff to draft a letter asking for the rationale for not removing signs from private property when they are in violation, as he felt if this could not be enforced then the Code should be changed. Where compatibility was concerned in the determination of a height variation, the Commission felt more detailed drawings should be provided. P.C. Minutes -5- 11/22/77 ADJOURNMENT • P.C. MINUTES At 12:10 a.m. and carried, December 13, E it was moved, seconded, to adjourn to Tuesday, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. 11/22/77