Loading...
PC MINS 19780523M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting May 23, 1978 The-m6etifig was called to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber and Assistant Planners Keith Turner and Charlie Jencks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of May 9, 1978, were approved with the following amendments: Page 4, fourth full paragraph, line 4 and line 6, delete as follows: "X multi-level parking Page 5, paragraph 3, add as last sentence, "He said he was aware of the Development Code prior to the installation of lights." Page 5, paragraph 8, should read "...lots 1, 2, and 4..." TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8947 Mr. Turner explained that at the last Lot 2, Parcel Map 2703 (99 Vander- meeting the Commission directed staff lip Drive, Portuguese Bend) to discuss with the Director of Public Applicant: Narvan Corporation Works the reasons for this proposed re- vision and with the City Attorney the legalities of this revision. He said the City Attorney recommended that the City and the subdivider file a separ- ate instrument of agreement with the County Recorder outlining the obliga- tions for payment and that reference to this agreement be made on the final map. Staff recommended approval of the revision as shown in the staff re- port with the following amendment: line 4 should read "...application for further subdivision of parcel..." L. Coates, 2500 Anabas Avenue, San Pedro, representing Narvan Corporation, felt the revision should be amended to read that the $7381 be paid to the City prior to any approval of a tentative map. Commission discussion ensued. Mr. McTaggart could not see.any reason why the wording should be changed as suggested by Mr. Coates. Mrs. Bacharach agreed. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the wording of condition #19 of Resolution No. 78-29 was changed as shown in the'Play 23, 1978, staff report, as amended by staff this evening. VARIANCE NO. 28 Mr. Turner said the request was for a 9 Diamonte Lane combination five-foot fence/wall, which Applicant: South Bay Engineering includes a 42 -inch retaining wall. He Landowner: Dr. Paul Kaye said the primary staff concern was the visibility problem. He explained that compounding the already poor visibility of this intersection is the wrought iron proposal which produces a screening effect. He referred to photos of a wrought iron and a chain link fence taken at different angles showing the screening effect. He discussed the required findings and said staff's recommendation was to continue the public hearing (at the applicant's request) to allow further attempts at a design which would not create an adverse intersection visibility problem. Mr. Hinchliffe asked how long the retaining wall has been in existence. Mr. Turner said about a year. He explained that staff had approved an ap- plication allowing for the construction of a 42 -inch retaining wall, but that it was built higher in places and was just recently lowered by the applicant. After explaining the public hearing procedures to the audience, Mr. Hughes opened the public hearing. Dr. Paul Kaye, 9 Diamonte Lane, applicant, said he had requested a continu- ance because he interpreted the staff report to mean that the request basic- ally conforms with the findings except for the visibility problem. He said he had several changes in mind but would rather not present them tonight, as he preferred to review them with staff prior to presenting them to the Commission. Angus Lorenzen, 15 Diamonte Lane, said that prior to the new construction, there was a five-foot chain link fence located where the proposed fence will be. He said the chain link fence created a hazardous condition and cited two accidents. He was concerned from a standpoint of safety. Mrs. Bacharach asked if a mirrored intersection has ever been considered for that corner. Mr. Lorenzen felt that would somewhat mitigate the problem, but would not last long because of vandalism. Richard Stern, 13 Diamonte Lane, agreed with the previous speaker. He said a mirror would not be effective in preventing accidents involving bicycles. Walter Barnes, 11 Diamonte Lane, was opposed to the request. He felt the City was liable for the safety of that corner. Merlene Kovacs, 12 Diamonte Lane, said this was a very dangerous corner. Dr.'Kaye suggested a white line be painted down the center of the road. Mr. Barnes pointed out that this was a private road and permission would be required from all property owners for a white line. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, Variance No. 28 was tabled until the next regular meeting, at which time additional plans would be reviewed. Mr. Turner said he would need the plans by Monday, June 5, in order to have adequate time to review them before the June 13 meeting. Mr. Hughes advised the audience that there would be no further notice for this item. Mr. McTaggart said he has known Dr. Kaye for about fifteen years, but that there was no financial consideration between them and he did not feel this would affect his decision. Mrs. Bacharach said she and Mrs. Kaye served on a committee together, but that there was no financial consideration and she did not feel this would influence her decision. RECESS At 8:23 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:32 p.m. with the same members present. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 272 Mr. Jencks reviewed the staff report 4104 Palos Verdes Drive East and discussed the access and lot slope, Applicant: California Investors stating that 64 percent of the proposed and Developers Company grading was on slopes in excess of 35 percent. Staff felt that given the topography of the site and the maximum downslope height limitations, any development of the site would necessitate 5/23/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- grading to some degree. Staff felt the subject proposal minimizes the disturbance and leaves the majority of the site in an undisturbed state. Staff recommended approval of the project without condition. Jim Smith, California Investors and Developers Company, 10807 Richmond Avenue, Los Angeles, spoke briefly, stating that they had tried to minimize disturbance of the site. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 272 was approved because the grading would occur under the structure and the proposal meets the intent of the Grading Ordinance. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 44 Mr. Jencks reviewed the background of 12 Packet Road this project for a height variation Applicant: E. Lam & M. Lou with a worst case encroachment of six Appellant: Klaus Landers inches into the sideyard setback. The City Council, in giving final approval of the height variation, advised the applicant that a minor exception permit would have to be secured in order to complete the approval process. He said the application was submitted and subsequently approved by staff, and this approval was then appealed. Staff recommended that the request be granted due to hardships and practical difficulties which could be created for the applicant if the project were made to conform to the required setback. Mr. McTaggart asked the maximum distance an overhang may encroach into a setback area. Mr. Jencks said the Code allowed a twenty -inch overhang into a five-foot setback. He also said that the applicant advised him that due to illness in the family, she was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Staff recommended that if the application was to be denied or if the Commission had questions for the applicant, that the application be continued to enable the applicant to present testimony. Mr. Hughes requested that all speakers address their comments to the Minor Exception Permit. Klaus Landers, 10 Packet Road, said everyone he contacted was strongly op- posed to the project, including the Arckie(ec 3Committee. He did not feel approval should be granted without a surveys. His main objection was to the closeness of the structure. He referred to drawings he had prepared. Mr. Anderson, 8 Seacove, was opposed to the project and did not feel that six inches could be considered a hardship. Mr. Beran, 19 Packet, was opposed and said this addition world affect the privacy of the appellant. John New, 8 Packet, an architect on the Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee, said the project design does not relate to the structure. He said the addition lacked continuity and that upon completion would look like an addition. Robert Haase, 20 Seacove, said the proposal was aesthetically and architec- turally undesirable and does not fit the structure it is modifying. Diane Osterstock, 32 Packet, felt the City should require a survey. She said the loss of sunlight due to the addition would eliminate the possibi- lity of growing plants for buffering and screening purposes. She said privacy and the unique homes in the area were qualities she was trying to preserve. She also expressed concern about the noise which will be generated from the addition, and said the Association was very much opposed to this request because of the loss of light, sun, and privacy. Mr. Hinchliffe asked (1) if the City typically requires surveys; (2) if there have been any deviations with this request; and (3) how often the City does require a survey. 5/23/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. Weber answered (1) no; (2) no; and (3) only when staff has a clear prob- lem with the way something is presented. Mrs. Bacharach asked how the setback was measured. Mr. Jencks said it was measured from both homes to the fence, and that as- suming Mr. Lander's setback was five feet, Mrs. Lam's home was encroaching a maximum of six inches into her required setback. Mr. McTaggart said the City Council approved the Height Variation and the Planning Commission cannot override the Council's decision, and he did not feel there was reason for the applicant to construct a second story addi- tion six inches inside the line of the existing structure. However, he suggested that the maximum overhang be reduced to fourteen inches. Mr. Hinchliffe said he was not convinced that six inches would make a sig- nificant difference and felt staff's approval of the minor exception permit was correct. Mr. Brown concurred with Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hinchliffe and agreed to the condition concerning the overhang. Mrs. Bacharach said that although she did not agree with the approval of the Height Variation, she did not feel that a six -inch -encroachment would create a negative impact. Mr. Hughes said he did not feel that six inches would make a significant difference in terms of light, air or privacy. He pointed out that the purpose of the minor exception permit process was to allow for adjustments of a reasonable nature. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the Commission denied the appeal, thereby granting Minor Exception Permit No. 44 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the vertical wall not be any closer than the existing wall to the neighbor's house. 2. That the eave overhang into the sideyard setback not exceed fourteen (14) inches as measured from the existing wall. Mr. Hughes advised the appellant and all those present of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. STAFF REPORTS Re the meeting with the City Attorney on Commission questions, Mr. Weber said the City Attorney was unable to meet on the proposed date of June 7, and suggested June 20, the regular Council meeting. Mrs. Bacharach said she wished to discuss with him the Brown Act and how it affects the Commission. Mr. Brown wished to discuss the scope and purvue of the Commission, and the lack of prosecution of Code violators. He also expressed concern that people can obtain permits from the County to do work which is illegal according to the City's Code. Mr. McTaggart suggested that the City investigate the possibility of the City issuing the permits once the pro3ect has been plan -checked by the County. Mrs. Bacharach suggested that the Planning Commission present a case to the City Council at budget sessions re the lack of funds for prosecution. It was decided that Mr. Hughes and Mrs. Bacharach would make up the subcom- mittee to review and make recommendations on portions of the proposed budget. Mr. Brown was concerned about the lack of communications between City Council/ Planning Commission/committees/staff. 5/23/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. Hinchliffe suggested a meeting of chairmen of the Commission and the various committees. Mr. Hughes said the mayor was proposing something of that nature, perhaps a meeting once a month. Re the Height Variation Ordinance, Mr. Weber reported that the City Attorney has drafted some wording to be reviewed by the City Council and if they feel it is appropriate, the changes would then go through the process for Code amendment. The Commission approved the final versions of Resolutions No. 78-34 and 78-35. ADJOURNMENT At 91-56 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, June 13, 1978. 5/23/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-