Loading...
PC MINS 19780613M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 13, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairperson Bacharach. PRESENT: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Bacharach ABSENT: Hughes Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Assistant Planner Charlie Jencks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion -of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of May 23, 1978, were approved with the following amendment: page 3, 7th full paragraph, line 4, should read "...without a survey of the lot line. His..." VARIANCE NO. 28 Mrs. Bacharach noted that Variance No. 9 Diamonte Lane 28 had been continued to this meeting Applicant: South Bay Engineering and should be taken up under Old Busi- Landowner: Dr. Paul Kaye ness as a matter of procedure in case anyone in the audience wished to speak. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak on the matter. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued until the applicant has submitted the re- vised plans to staff. VARIANCE NO. 29 Mrs. Bacharach explained the public 6505 Monero Drive hearing procedures to the audience. Applicant: Jon Hachikian She then opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Jencks reviewed the background of the request. He said David Rosso, the former Code Inpsector, while responding to a complaint on August 2, 1976, took note of a wall under construction on the front property line and ad- vised the applicant of the height limitation. He said on September 15, 1977, a complaint was received and the investigation by Robert Fleming, the cur- rent Code Inspector, revealed 'that portions of the wall exceeded the maxi- mum allowable height. He said the street -side wall varies in height from five feet nine inches (5'9") to six feet six inches (6'6"), and the pilasters and wrought iron gate on the front property line measure fifty-five (55) inches from the driveway slab. He noted an error in the staff report and said the six (6) foot side- wall does not encroach into the front setback. He reviewed the area and project description, zoning and lot size. He re- viewed the findings submitted by the applicant (as stated in the staff report) and cited the sections of the Development Code which have been violated. He reviewed staff's evaluation of the findings (as stated in the staff report) and said staff recommended denial of the request, since all of the findings cannot be made. He presented pictures of the subject property to the Com- mission. Jon Hachikian, 6505 Monero Drive, discussed the condition of the site when he purchased it and the improvements he has made. He said when Mr. Rosso inspected the site during construction of the front wall, he did not indi- cate any violation. He felt the fact that Mr. Rosso did not pursue the issue was proof that he did not see any violation. He said the wall was necessary to keep his dog in his yard, to keep other animals and tress - passers out of his yard, to prevent people from throwing debris into his yard, and to protect his family and property from automobile accidents which may occur at that intersection. He presented evidence of some of the items previously thrown into his yard and expressed concern over the safety of his family and dog. He said he planned the wall and commenced building in 1975, prior to adoption of the City's Code, but that the wall took a long time to complete and was done at great expense. He said there have been no accidents at that intersection as a result of lack of vision, and noted that he was very active in getting the four-way stop sign put in.� In response to Commission questions, he said he did not process plans for the construction of the wall, was not advised of the need for a building permit, and until recently was not aware of the forty-two (42) inch height limitation, as Mr. Rosso had indicated a maximum height of forty-eight (48) inches in the front, more or less. In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower said prior to the establishment of the City's Code, the County height limitation on walls within the front setback was forty-two (42) inches and had been for some time, and that the City's Development Code was established with a forty-two (42) inch height limit within the front setback. She also said the County requires a building permit for walls exceeding six (6) feet in height. Ed Bedrosian, 30503 Cartier, said the applicant had improved the appearance of the site considerably. He said it was an undesirable lot because of its proximity to the 7 -Eleven Market, as people park there to drink and throw their cans and bottles from their cars. He said this problem will not cease, but at least the wall prevents the trash from being thrown into the appli- cant's yard area. He said if the wall were lowered it would offer no�ppo­ tection for the applicant. Dominic Gargano, 1701 Granvia Altamira, said he wished to verify what the applicant said. He felt the City should be doing something about the high_ weedson both sides of the street instead. He felt the applicant had done a fine service for the City with the improvements he has made. Don Davis, 28836 Leah Circle, did not feel there was any visibility problem at that intersection and also felt that action by the City should have been taken during construction of the wall, not two years later. Jim Reuter, 6537 Monero Drive, said the applicant had made a significant improvement in the appearance of that corner. He said the wall is needed to keep the dog in the yard, and he did not feel there was a visibility problem. Walt Schmitteckert, 6749 Monero Drive, cited an accident at that intersec- tion before the applicant's purchase where the car came to rest in the yard not far from thehouse. He did not feel there was any vision impairment at that intersection, and praised the improvement of the property. Mrs. Hachikian, 6505 Monero Drive, pointed out that their lot was lower than the lots on the other three corners. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart explained that the Commissioners were required to make each of the four findings in order to grant a variance. He did not feel the applicant would be troubled with trespassers if the wall was the permitted height. He did not feel that a high wall was required in the front yard in order to contain the dog if there was a fence in the rear yard. He said he lived near a school and a lot of debris was thrown in his -yard, but that his neighbor down the street with a five (5) foot high fence in front suffered as much or more debris. Re accidents, he did not feel the height of the wall had any effect on preventing cars from going through the wall. He said he was unable to 3ustify the required findings. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the existing slumpstone section of the wall at the corner. Director Hightower said it was considered legally nonconforming. 6/13/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hinchliffe said he felt the same as Mr. McTaggart. He said it has been indicated that the applicant was advised of the height requirements in the front, and that he was unable to make two of the necessary findings. Dr. Brown concurred with Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hinchliffe. He said al- though he did not feel there was a visibility problem at that intersection with the stop signs there, he was unable to make all of the findings. Mrs. Bacharach said she could make (1) finding A. because the higher the wall, the less noise for the applicant; (2) finding B. because this wall would allow the applicants to use the property in a fashion which other homes are able to enjoy without the problems -- she felt a property right entails using the front and rear of the property with reasonable privacy and reasonably free of litter and noise; and (3) finding C. because she saw no visibility problem with the stop signs there. She said she was able to make all of the findings. Mr. McTaggart felt if there was some limitation on the property whereby only the front yard could be used (such as a cliff in the rear yard), he could make finding B., but such was not the case. He pointed out that the requirement for findings was a State law and that the hardship could not be self-imposed in the granting of a variance. He felt the applicant had been advised of what the Code allows, and pointed out that the six (6) foot por- tion of the wall would also have required a County permit. Dr. Brown asked if Mr. Rosso had advised the applicant of the height limita- tion on the wall. Director Hightower said he advised him of the front sec- tion only, as the side wall was already there. Mr. McTaggart moved to deny Variance No. 29, but said he would like to see a compromise worked out between the applicant and staff to attempt to bring the wall into conformance with the Code before any order to remove the wall is given. Director Hightower said in order to conform with the Code, the applicant would either have to lower the wall to forty-two (42) inches or move it back behind the twenty (20) -foot front setback and ten (10) foot side yard setback. The above motion died for lack of a second. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to deny Variance No. 29 because all of the required findings could not be made. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart NOES: Bacharach ABSENT: Hughes Mrs. Bacharach advised the applicant of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen (15) calendar days. CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM Director Hightower said this was the second year the City had complied with the State law requiring the Director of Planning to submit to the Planning Commission for its review a list of all proposed public works recommended for the ensuing fiscal year. She ex- plained that the Commission must review the list and report to her -:as to conformity with the land use designations of the General Plan. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission reported to the Director of Planning that the Commission had reviewed the list of proposed public works for fiscal year 1978-79 and found all items in conformance with the General Plan. CONFERENCE EXPENSE RECOMMENDATION ferences and meetings. She asked for Director Hightower distributed to the Commission the staff recommendations for budget for the Commission for con - their recommendations. 6/13/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. McTaggart recommended that the newest members of the Commission have first chance to attend any conferences/seminars, since everyone could not attend. He also suggested that just staff attend the Annual League of California Cities Conference and that the Commissioners attend those con- ferences which directly concern commissions. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the Commission resolved to recommend to the City Council that at minimum the two newest Commissioners should be funded to attend the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners' Institute and an appropriate commissioners' seminar, as offered by the University of California. OTHER STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower discussed the Southwest Area Planning Council lun- cheon meeting on June 23, 1978, and reminded the Commissioners that they should submit expense forms to the City for reimbursement when they attend these meetings. In response to a question of Mr. Hinchliffe, Director Hightower reported on the status of the Coastal Plan. Re the scheduled meeting with the City Attorney on June 20, Director High- tower informed the Commission that the City Attorney was on vacation until July 5. The Commission commented that it was very difficult to speak with the City Attorney during Council meetings, as it was necessary for him to go back and forth. They suggested meeting with him on an off -night or perhaps at 6:30, prior to the start of the Council meeting. Director Hightower said that type of request would have to go before the City Council for approval. ADJOURNMENT At 9:25 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, June 27, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. 6/13/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-