Loading...
PC MINS 19771213M I N U T E S (Oz. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting December 13, 1977 The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planners Keith Turner and Charlie Jencks. MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of November 16, 1977, were approved with the following amendment: page 2, paragraph 11, line 4, should read "...entitled to the same protection under the laws; if..." On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried (with Mr. Hinchliffe abstaining), the minutes of the meeting of November 22, 1977, were approved as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS Alberta Bunker, manager and resident of Seagate, was concerned that she had had no response to the letter and petition presented to the Commission in opposition to widening the roadway in the proposed Tentative Tract No. 33093. She said With a separate road- way, shrubbery of some sort could be planted between the two roadways to decrease the n6ise and visual impact (car lights, etc.). Mr. McTaggart explained that conceptual approval had been granted to the applicant, approving a design which meets the goals of the Commission. He explained that the Commission has not yet completed its review of the project and that the project would also be considered by the City Council. TREE TRIMMING ORDINANCE Pies the major concepts which have recommendation by the Commission re sent to the Council. Mr. Weber briefly reviewed the staff report concerning recommendations for an arbitration committee, which identi- been discussed by the Commission. A the make-up of this committee is to be Mr. McTaggart suggested that the discussion of an arbitration committee be scheduled for a work session. The public hearing was re -opened. Patrick J. Hanlon, 313 Dianora Drive, Mira Catalina Homeowners' Associa- tion, tion, Chairman of the Committee ofZY'Aancho Palos Verdes Council of Home - I �n�esr�Associations, said he did not agree with the 25% figure, and felt ,Xco � e.Acommittee make-up should be included as part of the ordinance. Re excluding the Miraleste area from the ordinance, he was concerned about the legal aspect, and felt the feeling of all of the residents in the area should be considered. Franz Fisher asked for clarification on parts of the ordinance. Marie Pulver, 6528 Nancy Road, Miraleste, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. Warren Brockto, attorney for the Miraleste Park and Recreation District, referred to the letter sent by the District, asking that the public park- land owned by the District be exempt, not individual property owners. He explained that the tax rate is limited by State law and that if the District was suddenly put in the position of having to trim 500 trees, it would go bankrupt. Charles Kushman, Board of Directors of the Miraleste Park and Recreation District, felt the District was unique because of the wildlife and the old trees. Kathy Hubbard, 6519 Via Colinita, showed the Commission a map of the Miraleste area, and said the map and a booklet were available to all homeowners. She said there were petitions being circulated for exclusion from the ordinance, and presented a formal letter to the Commission. She said she did not agree with the attorney, as she felt private homeowners should also be excluded. She read the petition which stated same. Bob Hanson, 3140 Lorraine Road, was opposed to the ordinance, saying it was a poor idea, particularly for the Miraleste area. Diane McCandlish, 4124 Lorraine Road, read a letter in opposition to the ordinance. Barbera Mayer, 4500 Maine Road, concurred with the previous speaker, saying that they bought their property because of the trees, and pointed out that some of the trees are over 100 years old. She was concerned that topping those trees would kill them. She said she had a petition in opposition. Pat Vilicich, 4205 Miraleste Drive, was opposed and said she also had a petition. She felt the trees were a view and that people bought in the area because of the wooded effect. She pointed out there was no deed on anyone's property which provides a lifetime view. Stan Nugent spoke in favor of the ordinance. Robert Smith was concerned about some of the hedges which have grown over ten feet high. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. RECESS At 9:23 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:33 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. McTaggart felt a work session should be scheduled to discuss an arbitra- tion committee and any further changes to the ordinance. Mrs. Bacharach asked that the City Attorney review/4-t- prior to the work session. Mr. Hughes also requested that the questions previously asked of the City Attorney, particularly re the Miraleste area, be answered prior to that work session. Under Section 9690, line 4, the Commission made the following change: strike the word "private", put the word "other" back in. The work session was scheduled for January 19, 1978. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 71 Mr. Turner reviewed the request which 12 Packet Road was first considered at the November 22 Applicant: E. Lam & M. Lou meeting. As requested, a more detailed Appellent: Klaus Landers plan had been submitted indicating that the only significant changes involved the window placement and elevation above floor level (five feet). Staff recommended upholding the appeal and denying the project. Mr. Turner said he measured the distance between the fence and the applicant's structure, and it appears to be less than the required five-foot setback; therefore, a minor exception permit would be required or proof submitted that a five-foot setback does exist. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, public participation was re -opened. Klaus Landers, 10 Packet Road, said loss of privacy -due to -the closeness of the proposed structure was the only issue which concerned him. He felt the request was not compatible and the cumulative effect would be adverse. 12/13/77 Planning Commission Minutes -2- Jack Sess was opposed to the variation and agreed with the staff report. Mr. Gnann, 7 Packet Road, was opposed. Mr. Gussman, 11 Packet Road, was opposed and felt there would be view ob- struction to his property. Ms. Nerko, 6 Packet Road, was opposed. Bob Pelton, 2 Packet Road, felt the design of the proposed addition was poor, and he was concerned about future use of the property. Elizabeth Lam presented pictures to the Commission and said the 22 -foot high structure (as proposed) would be more compatible than if it were built at 16 feet. Re adding to the rear instead, she explained the diffi- culties in getting equipment to the rear and also said due to the 15 -foot required setback, there was no room for an addition of the size proposed. Elizabeth Campbell, 29 Packet Road, said she had been,granted one of the first height variations in the City for a second story addition with the neighboring house the same distance away. She said the same objections were received as were heard tonight, but that the opposing neighbors were pleased with the results. She said there is a home on Packet Drive with an existing separate guest house in the rear. James Benchy, Century Builders, said the addition could be built in the rear, but it would ruin the existing structure and the expense would be tremendous. He felt the project, as proposed, was the only feasible solution. Mr. Lytal, 3 Barkentine, said he has been aware of the proposal and does not object. He said it was his intent that his silence would indicate approval. Mr. Landers felt, if approved, the value of Mrs. Lam's home would be en- hanced at his expense. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public participation was closed. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Turner said staff was unable to make finding B. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with staff and said he was also unable to make find- ings C, D, and F. Mr. Hughes said he could make the finding that the proposal was compatible and did not feel there was any significant view obstruction. He felt, however; that the stairway should be enclosed so that the proposed struc- ture takes access from inside the house. He felt he could make the findings. Mrs. Bacharach felt the structure was not compatible because of the lack of privacy, but agreed that a structure 16 feet high would be worse. Mr. McTaggart did not feel the structure would stop the air flow and could not see any other practical way to construct the addition on the property. He agreed with Mr. Hughes about enclosing the stairway for security reasons as well as for appearance sake. He felt he could make the findings. Mr. Rosenberg did not feel the structure, as proposed, was compatible with the neighborhood, and was not convinced that this was the only alternative. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, to uphold the appeal based on the Commission's failure to meet findings B, C, D, and F. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Rosenberg NOES: Hughes, McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. McTaggart advised the applicant of her right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. 12/13/77 Planning Commission Minutes -3- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33206 Mr. Weber reviewed the background of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 this project, listing the five items San Pedro Hill -Crest Road (East) of concern from the last meeting. He Applicant: S & S Construction Co. discussed the project considerations Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties and the advantages and disadvantages of the single -loaded street. Re the street width, staff recommended that the Commission consider a 24 -foot width. He explained that at the time of writing the staff report, the applicant had not yet submitted the requested materials, but had indicated to the staff that the data would be presented at this meeting. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern that the drawings were not submitted in time for staff review. George Putnam, S & S Construction Company, explained that it took longer than anticipated to prepare the material. He said they wished direction from the Commission so they may continue work on the proposal. He said the grades on the roads have been reduced to 100, and that some recreational facilities have been provided. He said there were grading alternatives and alternative access points. Ralph Martin, planner, 4000 Westerly Place, Newport Beach, discussed the slopes, presented drawings, and discussed the alternative drawings. Mr. Hughes asked if this proposal had been looked at in relation to the recently prepared trails maps. Mr. Weber said it had not, and Mr. Hughes requested that this be done. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hughes said he contacted several agencies for information concerning radiation, and found that exposure7waves greater than ten mil&_watts/_C-M27-d,/n,)- are dangerous, but that no studies have been performed on less than that. He was concerned that they were dealing in an area where the cumulative effects are unknown. He felt the levels should be verified and the homes constructed to meet standards. Mr. Putnam suggested that the radiation consultant come to the next meeting to discuss this with the Commission. Mr. McTaggart said at the last Council meeting he asked for legal advice concerning this, and suggested that Mr. Hughes submit his information to the City Attorney for his review and opinion. The Commission discussed the construction of private interior roads and also discussed the possibility of dual access. Mr. Rosenberg requested more information giving definite figures for the grading, and Mr. McTaggart requested drawings indicating what the develop- ment will look like from Crest Road, and also requested the names of the trees which will be planted. Mr. Martin said he would prepare something re those concerns. The Commission discussed recreational areas, and Mrs. Bacharach felt private open space could be utilized for recreation. She also felt the trail system should be looked into, and was not in favor of a 24 -foot wide road. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the roads be 28 feet wide, and Mr. Hughes said he would like the roads to remain public. Mr. McTaggart concurred re the roads remaining public, and Mr. Weber said the Council is trying to avoid creating maintenance districts. The Commission reached the following consensus: to have public roads; at least two accesses; that the roads meet the minimum City road standards; and the recreational areas be for passive recreation. The Commission re- quested that pictures be enlarged and houses sketched in; that drawings be prepared showing both single and double loaded roads and the impacts with each; and that material be submitted showing the visual impact from below. The Commission discussed setbacks, on -street parking, and reached a consensus that there be a minimum setback of 20 feet from road edge to garages. 12/12/77 Planning Commission Minutes -4- • • Mr. Rosenberg requested that visitor parking be looked into also. VARIANCE NO. 24 Mr. Jencks reviewed the application, 5504 West Crestridge Road the area and project description, the Applicant: Palos Verdes Community zoning and project considerations. He Arts Asso6iation reviewed the four required findings. Staff recommendation was for denial of the project based�on the grounds that all of the required findings could not be made. Mr. McTaggart opened the public hearing. James Stewart, 32735 Seagate Drive, one of the directors of the,Association, said there has been no comparable variance because there is no comparable use in the area. He said they have a reciprocal parking agreement with the two churches. He explained that the patio was designed as an integral part of the building and that the trellis would greatly reduce the existing prob- lems with rain, sun, and wind. John New, architect, spoke briefly about the project. Harvey Brown, 29234 Beachside, president of the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners' Association, spoke in favor of the request. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart felt the intent of the setback requirement is to provide a buffer between uses, and that the easement provides this buffer, as well as the difference in elevation. Mr. Hughes felt there was a similar circumstance with the temple, where the Commission granted a variance to build up to the property line. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to approve Variance No. 24 based on the ability of the Commission to meet the necessary findings as required in Section 9731 of the Development Code. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTAGIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7977 Mr. Turner reviewed the application, Forrestal Drive near Palos Verdes the area and project description, the Drive South, Lot 4, Tract 26414 project considerations and the charts Applicant: Palos Verdes Properties included in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission reach a consensus for approval, subject to a minor lot line adjustment, and that staff would then draft the appropriate resolution and conditions to be presented to the Commission at the next meeting. I Public participation was opened. William C. Kahn, 15230 Wilshire Boulevard, said he agreed with the staff report and will make revisions as suggested. Art Meyer, 3711 Vigilance Drive, asked about utilities and said he would object if it is not to be underground. Mr. Weber said undergrounding would be required. He said he would check with Edison Company re the existing poles. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, said he did not like the lot configura- tion, but felt this proposal was probably the best which can be done. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, public participation was closed. 12/13/77 Planning Commission Minutes -5- Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to conceptually approve the map subject to staff recommendations and to authorize staff to draft a resolution and conditions, to be presented to the Commission for approval at the next meeting. Mr. McTaggart said he would like one of the conditions to require the utilities come from Forrestal Drive. Mr. Rosenberg felt staff should check with the Edison Company prior to determining that condition. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: None COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart wondered why the Way- farer Chapel construction did not re- quire an amendment to the conditional use permit. Mr. Turner explained it was,determined to be minimal and required only a site plan review. The Commission reached a consensus approving the draft memos to the City Council re "Recommendations on Common Driveways" and "St. Peter's By The Sea Church Access and Tentative Tract No. 33358/Conditional Use Permit No. 25.11 ADJOURNMENT At 1:50 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Wednesday, December 21, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. 12/13/77 Planning Commission Minutes -6-