Loading...
PC MINS 19780627M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 27, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart (arrived late), Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Assistant Planners Keith Turner and Charlie Jencks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of June 13, 1978, were approved with the following amendments: page 1, paragraph 1, line 2, should read "...by Vice -Chairperson.:."; page 2, ninth complete paragraph, line 3, should read "trespassers"; page 3, paragraph 3, line 1, should read "...finding A. because there are exceptional and extraordinariry circumstances due to the fact that the house is located on a busy inter- section and the -higher..." VARIANCE NO. 28 Mr. Turner said this project was continued 9 Diamonte Lane at the May 23 meeting to allow the Applicant: South Bay Engineering applicant to submit revised plans and was Landowner: Dr. Paul Kaye tabled at the June 13 meeting because the applicant had not submitted the revised plans in time for that agenda. He said revised plans call for realigning the originally proposed vertical bar wrought iron fence to a horizontal bar configuration with vertical supports as shown on the revised plan. Staff recommended that in light of the revised plans and subject to certain conditions, the Commission find that the project would not be materially detrimental to property and improvements in the project vicinity. Staff further recommended that the Commission discuss findings A, B, and C, as presented in the May 23 staff report for concurrence and approve Variance No. 28 subject to conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10 of the list of potential conditions attached to tonight's staff report. He made a change to condition #1 by adding the words "within the critical sight area." Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:40 p.m. Mrs. Bacharach asked if Public Works looked at the possibility of the other conditions. Mr. Turner said they were offered for review, but that the Director of Planning was concerned that conditions 5,8, and 9 might cause liability to the City. Mr. Hughes explained public hearing procedures to the audience and opened the public hearing. Dr. Paul Kaye, 9 Diamonte Lane, did not agree with the condition to lower the wall, and pointed out that the Code allows for a forty-two (42) inch wall up to the property line. He said they have designed the wall to be as safe as possible, but have the right to expect that reasonable safety precautions would be taken by all of the neighbors, as they are very much aware of the problem. He said he was opposed to both conditions 1 and 2 because they would cause him a loss of privacy. He said he was in favor of a mirror and of striping the road and also suggested a warning sign to be placed on the right side of the street for traffic coming towards the cul-de-sac with suggested wording "Slow --5 m.p.h." R6_ the_cTriticii­srte line, he felt that should be established by staff prior to the Commission's decision. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Turner explained that he could not define the critical site line without an extensive site inspection and probably a survey (because of deed restrictions), and staff did not feel the expense was warranted at this time. He said if the Commission wished to grant conceptual approval, he would determine the actual dimensions of the critical site line prior to final approval. Walter Barnes, 11 Diamonte Lane, said the conditions recommended in the staff report were acceptable to him. Richard Stern, 13 Diamonte Lane, a reed with the staff recommended condi- tions and felt it was an excellen;icompromise for all parties concerned. Lowell Black, 10 Diamonte Lane, was opposed to anything over thirty-six (36) inches because it is now difficult for him to see on -coming traffic when he is getting out of his driveway. Merlene Kovacs, 12 Diamonte Lane, said there was not complete visibility now and felt the wall definitely should be lowered. on motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr.Brown said he could go along with lowering the wall, but was concerned about the City having liability with some of the safety measures. He said he was reasonably satisfied with the six recommended conditions. Mr. McTaggart did not feel there was a privacy issue and was, therefore, not opposed to the condition to lower the yard area, but did not agree to the critical sight area being determined later. Re condition 6, he said it should already be known whether or not the proposed wall meets the County Building Code requirements. Mr. Turner said he spoke with Building and Safety and they gave a preliminary yes to the fence, but would have to see it first to be sure. Mr. McTaggart felt the horizontal bars were an invitation to children to climb over. He said he also disagreed with loweriAg the wall because it would make it that much easier to climb. He said he would approve of a sign as suggested by Dr. Kaye. Mrs. Bacharach also felt lowering the wall was a definite invitation to climb. She said this was a dangerous intersection, and felt the City Attorney should review the safety measures and give his opinion on possible liability. If he determined there would be no liability, she felt the conditions for the safety measures should be included in the approval. She also felt before any more time was spent on this variance, it should be known whether or not this proposal would meet the County requirements. She felt perhaps the item should be continued pending staff input on the critical sight line and the City Attorney's opinion re the safety factors. Mr. Hinchliffe said Mr. McTaggart's comments re lowering the wall were well taken. He said he was not convinced, however, that any of the precautions would really slow anyone down. He did feel the visibility problem was an important issue and said he would be in favor of researching some of the Commission's concerns before reaching a final decision. Mr. Hughes said he spoke with a member -.--of the Traffic Committee who agreed the intersection did have a visibility problem. He felt children could climb over any kind of fence, and that if the County was satisfied that the 6/27/78 Planning Commission Minutes -2- wall met the requirements, he was more than satisfied with the recommended conditions which would mitigate the visibility problem. He said he was in favor of lowering the wall and did not have much faith in mirrors, berms, or speed bumps. He also felt most of the offe,iders were residents. He said defining the critical sight line would be based on several variables which are unknown at this time. He pointed out that staff has been asked tD do a lot more critical things than this on a subjective level and did not see a -r -.,y problem. Mr. Hinchl-Iffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve the staff recommendations for Variance No. 28 on a conceptual basis, subject to staff looking into the liability of conditions 5, 8, and 9, and that staff define more accurately to the Commission the area considered to be the critical sight area. Mr. McTaggart said the motion did not include all of the issues discussed by the Commission, i.e., the caution sign which he felt was very important, and it does not address striping the road. He felt a consensus should be reached on each individual item before a motion is made. Mrs. Bacharach said she could not make a decision on conditions I and 2 without knowing the critical sight area and without knowing whether or not the County approves of the design. She also felt they should investigate the possible use of a caution sign. The vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart ABSENT: None Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to continue Variance No. 28 and that staff define the critical sight area and obtain the opinion of the City Attorney re any liability involved with conditions 5, 7, 8, and 9, and submit this information to the Commission. It was also directed that information be provided to the Commission as to how the critical sight area definition was determined. Mr. Hughes was opposed to continuing the item and felt that the Commission was doing a disservice to everyone by not acting. He said he would like to see the item moved along. The vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart NOES: Hinchliffe, Hughes ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised the audience that there would be no further notification of a meeting on this item. At 8:40 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. with the same members present. 6/27/78 Planning Commission Minutes -3- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 35 Mr. Turner said this item was continued VARIANCE NO. 25 from the May 9 meeting, at which time Intersection of Silver Spur Rd. the Commission determined that an Silver Spur frontage road acceptable figure would be four parking Applicant: Matt Brunning spaces per 1000 square feet of leasable area, and that a reduction in perimeter landscaping and setback standards may be acceptable provided critical visibility lines remain unobstructed. He reviewed the revised plan which shows a reduction in gross floor area, an increase in parking spaces, an increase in grading for the parking pad with a twenty -foot retaining wall, and major changes in the architectural style. He said the City Engineer indicated only a preliminary review had been done on the geology report and that it appeared adequate although it indicated some adverse site conditions re stability. He said there has been some recent sliding on the subject slope. Staff recommended that public input be taken, that the Commission discuss major issues, and that the item be tabled until a complete geology report has been submitted and reviewed. Dr. Brown asked about information on the multi-level parking discussed previously. Mr. Turner said the applicant has nQt yet submitt d any input - on that. &A. 8,-o--w-n Hca d• tx- , g.�c.G�.�a� y - The public hearing was opened. Neither the applicant nor his representative was present. Mr. Turner said he had spoken with the architect who indicated he would be prepared to speak at this meeting. Ted Rouge, 27641 Longhill, read sections of the geology report, and expressed concern about the danger of landslides during construction of the retaining wall. He said he had no objection to the building, but was concerned about what effect disturbing the hill could have on the homes around it. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued until a complete geology report including test borings has been prepared by the applicant and reviewed by City Planning staff and the City Engineer. The Commission felt investigation of a multi-level parking structure should be delayed until after the geology issues have been taken care of. VARIANCE NO. 30 Mr. Jencks said the request was for an 7270 Berryhill Drive already constructed rear yard deck which Applicant: John H. Wiggins encroaches into the required sideyard setbacks. He reviewed the background of the project and noted that the applicant had obtained both City and County approvals for construction of the subject deck,. He described the project and its location. He reviewed the issues paraphrased from the application concerning findings for the variance (as stated in the staff report) and reviewed staff's evaluation of the necessary findings (as stated in the staff report). Staff recommended denial on the grounds that the appropriate findings cannot be made and that the subject deck be brought into conformance with the City's Development Code within sixty days of this decision. The public hearing was opened. John Wiggins, 7270 Berryhill Drive, said re a. of staff's evaluation, the deck could have been easily accommodated during plan check, but now would cost a considerable amount of money to change. Re b., the question is how many have been granted which have been designed, plan checked, permitted and buil with non-conformance to the Code. Re c., privacy is an issue only on the Bowen side, and people would have to stand on the corner of the deck to look in. Re d., the dictionary defines housing more specifically. Re e., there definitely was an administrative error made and further that the intent cannot be satisfied by chopping off a portion of his deck. He said he is not convinced that anything was violated. He discussed the money spent for construction of the deck, including all the approvals and permits, and did not feel the liability should be placed on the applicant or builder. Harold Bowen, 7278 Berryhill Drive, said the project encroaches on his privacy and eliminates his view of Catalina Island. He was opposed to the request. 6/27/78 Planning Commission Minutes -.4- Jim Nazemi, 7264 Berryhill Drive, was opposed to the request as it affects his .privacy and has cut off a great deal of his view. Jim Morrison, 7284 Berryhill, said his home was within three feet of the property line and wondered if he was in violation. Mr. Hughes explained that it was in conformance at the time it was built, and, therefore, would be considered legally non -conforming now. Michael O'Sullivan, 30466 Via Cambron, said his property was immediately downhill from the Wiggins' property as well as three other lots. He asked how the height is measured for the deck, and wondered if any consideration was given relative to invasion of privacy. Mr. Jencks explained how the height is measured and the issues taken into consideration -for project approval. Vicky Young, 7256 Berryhill, asked when the deck was completed. The applicant responded either in July or August of 1977. Mr. Wiggins responded to the neighbor's comments and said re the Sullivan's concern, he would plant bushes along the rear of the deck. Re the neighbor to the north, he said their property was at a higher elevation, and he did not feel there was a privacy issue. Re the Bowen property, he felt the principal problem was the railing, not the deck. He said the railing could be moved. Alan Young, 7256 Berryhill Drive, said there were reasons for requiring setbacks, and the Code should not be violated. He did not feel moving the railing would solve the problem, as a future owner could move the railing, --.and people could still walk to the edge of the deck. Marlene Wiggins, said they enjoy the privacy of their own back yard and have no need to look into other people's yards. She felt they have the right to use their property and does not feel there is any infringement on anyone else's property rights. On the motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously �- carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart felt it was unfortunate the City allowed the violation to occur, but felt the expense involved in moving the deck exceeds the value it would serve. He felt the action of the City and County in approving the deck created a hardship for the applicant. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the City and County have a responsibility for the error which was made. He did not feel it fair to have the applicant correct this error at his expense. Mrs. Bacharach agreed with Mr. McTaggart and said she could make finding E. Dr. Brown concurred and said he could make the necessary findings. Mr. Hughes felt the applicant showed good faith by obtaining the proper approvals and has the right to expect the City to advise him of any vio- lations during review of plans. He said he would have no difficulty making the findings. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to approve Variance No. 30 based on making finding E., that there are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships because removal of the portion of the deck in violation would not be of any material benefit to the City or the neighbors and that the expense of removal would be an undue burden on the applicant. This approval is subject to the following conditions. 1.. Any future physical alterations to the deck (i.e., any increasen its size) would require that the deck be brought into complete confIrImance with the Code by removal of those portions of the deck which are encroaching into the side yard setbacks. 6/27/78 Planning Commission Minutes -5- 0 2. An adequate landscaping plan for the rear of the deck be submitted by the applicant for approval by the Director of Planning. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised the audience that this action may be appealed to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes asked the status of Conditional Use Permit No. 36 and Variance No. 26. Mr. Turner said he has not heard from the applicant. The Commission requested that staff check on this project. Mr. Turner reported that staff notified the County re electrical permits and what the County should be checking for. Mr. Hughes asked if Mrs. Lam's project had been appealed. Mr. Jencks said there was no appeal. Mr. Hughes asked about the tennis court on Hawthorne Boulevard. Director Hightower said the hearing date is June 29, and that the applicant has been in the office talking about submitting a variance prior to that date. Mr. McTaggart asked about Mr. Hachikian's variance. Director Hightower said he has appealed that decision and that it was scheduled for the next Council meeting. Mr. Hughes asked if the Council has been requested to authorize a meeting between the Commission and the City Attorney. Director Hightower said she would forward a request for their next meeting. Mr. Hughes asked when the Code Amendment on height would be heard. Director Hightower said probably the second meeting in July. ADJOURNMENT At 11:00 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, July 11, 1978.