Loading...
PC MINS 197906120 0 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 12, 1979 �u� sof iG�9 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by outgoing Chairman Hughes. Mr. Hughes thanked the staff and the Commission for their effort during his chairmanship and for their friendship. He announced that Mr. Hinch- liffe was selected by the City Council as the new chairman. He pledged his support to Mr. Hinchliffe. Director Hightower congratulated Mr. Hinchliffe as the new chairman and Mr. Hughes for his efforts as chairman over the past year. Mr. Hinchliffe thanked the Commission and staff members and took his seat as chairman. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Code Inspector Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of May 8, 1979, were approved with the following amendments: page 2, paragraph 8, line 2, should read "...for the applicant."; and page 4, 9th full paragraph, line 3, should read "...this a publicly accessible..." On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of May 22, 1979, were approved as submitted. SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT NO. 12 Ms. Lavitt explained that the appli- 5665 Sunmist cant was appealing the staff denial Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. D. Carlucci of a request to maintain a neutered pygmy goat in an RS -4 zone, not located within an animal overlay district. She said the City became aware of the animal through a complaint due to a dog barking at the goat. She said the applicant applied for the permit and the notices mailed by the City illicited negative response from the surrounding residents concerning odor which may result from the keeping of a goat. She said the veterinarian contacted by staff indicated that the past neutering of the animal controlled odor and that the amount of bleating from the goat would depend solely on the nature of the goat, as does the amount of barking from a dog. She said there was verification from a local veterinarian that this is a pygmy goat. She said according to the Health Department odor could be controlled by the application of dehydrated lime to the ground, She said the property did not conform to the minimum 15,000 square feet re- quired for lot size as it was only 10,000 square feet, but that although "Brutus" was not currently being housed according to the Code, there was ample room for the large doghouse to be relocated 35 feet from any habitable structure. She said the Code prohibits the keeping of male goats. Staff recommended denial. Don Carlucci, 5665 Sunmist, said he was speaking for himself, his wife, and their children. He said Brutus has been in the family for three years, that prior to getting the goat his wife called City Hall and was told that no animal was prohibited in the City. He said his neighbors surrounding his previous home were not even aware that he had a goat, as there had never been a problem with odor or noise. He said the odor noticed _by the Code Inspector during a site inspection was probably caused by the rabbit which was located in the same area. He had several letters of support from both his old and new neighbors attesting to the fact that Brutus has never been a nuisance and never caused an odor nor made noise. He read a letter from a neighbor retracting a previous objection, referred to the May 15 article in the Los Angeles Times on African pygmy goats, and referred to two letters he received from teachers re the goat's character and educa- tional value. He said although the property was not considered large enough for a "large domestic animal," Brutus did not really fall under that cate- gory as he was only 22 inches high. Joseph Sinagra, 6313 Monero Drive, said he had been a neighbor of the appli- cant for more than 16 years. He said the animal was gentle and there was never any odor, and that the Carlucci's home is kept immaculate both inside and out, that they take pride in their home. Dr. Wilson, 27919 Alverez Drive, said he had lived one house from the appli- cant and that he was not aware that they had a goat until the applicant told him, as there was never any problem. The resident of 6215 Monero Drive said he had lived across the street from the applicant for 16 years and -never knew he had a goat until he was told. Lynn Carlucci, daughter of the applicant, said Brutus was intelligent and gentle and that she and her family loved him. Mrs. Bacharach said she visited the site and was impressed with the goat and the condition -of the yard. She felt this type situation was the reason special animal permits were designed. She was in favor of approving the request with periodic review. Mr. McTaggart said the reason the Code does not allow for male goats is due to their odor producing qualities and that special animal permits were designed for exceptions. He was in favor of approval for this animal only and with annual review. Dr. Brown and Mr. Hughes concurred with the previous speakers. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to grant Special Animal Permit No. 12 subject to the following conditions. 1. That the permit apply to the existing goat (Brutus) only. 2. That an annual review every August be performed by the staff to see that the goatyis, still in compliance with the conditions set forth. 3. That the pen be located the required distance from residential struc- tures to comply with the "Q" District permit requirements; and that this condition be met within sixty (60) days from any appropriate appeal periods in order for the permit to be granted. 4. That all requirements of the "Q" District be met, with the exception of the lot size. The motion for approval was based on the following findings: 1. That the goat kept or maintained within the proposed district will not jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare because the animal has been residing at the property and there was a great deal of testimony tonight stating that the animal had in the past provided benefits to the community at schools, has not been a nuisance, is friendly and behaves in a manner expected from a pet. 2. That the keeping or maintaining of the goat within the proposed dis- trict will not be a material detriment to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons in the vicinity of the proposed 6/12/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- district because a procedure is set up for review by staff to ensure that the public health and safety aspects are checked and reviewed by the City, and that the Commission received no testimony that any prob- lem now exists. 3. That the lots or parcels within the proposed district are adequate in size and shape to accommodate the goat because staff has indicated that there is sufficient room to locate the pen, that assuming the conditions are met the size is adequate for a small pygmy goat, that the goat is not an average farm type goat and is small like a typical dog. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 15 calendar days. He further advised the applicant that he should not sign with a contractor for the work until after the 15 -day appeal period. Mrs. Bacharach had some concerns with this section of the Code and requested that the matter be discussed at some time by the Commission. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35040 Mr. Weber said this request was for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 51 the subdivision of a 14.68 acre parcel Palos Verdes Drive South at Seawolf into a 57 -unit residential planned Applicant/Landowner: Hang -King Inv. development. He reviewed the project location, zoning of the site and adja- cent zones, the development plans, access to the site, and interior streets. He discussed the project con- siderations, referring to the chart comparing the proposal with the Code requirements, as shown in the staff report. He said there appeared to be overall compliance with the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan; that there appeared to be no major conflicts with applicable development stan- dards; and that the initial study identified four areas of potential or known impact that could have a significant effect on the environment as follows: adverse soil conditions, possible cultural resources, potential adverse noise, and obstruction of public view. He said in order to reduce the potential impacts to an acceptable level, mitigation measures have been assigned to each impact, as summarized on a page attached to the Negative Declaration. He reviewed the design concept and referred the Commission to a scale model of the development which was on display. He said one of the major concerns was the vehicular access and parking. He reviewed the com- ments of the Public Works Department and City Engineer and issues of concern to the Environmental Services staff regarding public vs. private streets, single loaded streets, street design, intersection design, and road improve- ments. He reviewed the grading and said staff felt the grading plan was not in keeping with the intent of the criteria and should be revised to be more consistent with the Code. He reviewed the view/visual aspects and said the proposed project would result in some view obstruction from the public right- of-way and potential view obstruction from the first floor of some of the units in Tract 33358. Another area of concern involved future landscaping and staff recommended deed restrictions which prohibit landscaping from ob- structing an identified view. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, discuss major issues, and require redesign of the pro- ject. Staff recommended following the Public Works recommendations for road design, drainage, elimination of the single loaded road, relocation of the parking bays and access from Palos Verdes Drive South if the streets are public; that the intent of the Coastal Act re maximum public access be met; that the grading be minimized; that the public view obstruction be eliminated; and that units located within the high "noise level" area be redesigned or relocated so there will be no impact. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said a double loaded road would allow for parking with no need for parking bays, that the views from 6/12/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- the units are benefited from the single loaded road concept; that while it would be great for every unit to have a view, staff was concerned with the overall concept and design and felt eliminating one-quarter acre of pave- ment would be a good trade-off. He said this proposal requires more grad- ing than would be required with a double loaded road. Mr. McTaggart felt the view could be improved by other means. Mr. Hinchliffe said before continuing further with the meeting he wished to thank and commend Mr. Hughes for -the leadership he provided during his chairmanship and that he looked forward to working with him in the future. Public hearing was opened. David Jarvis, attorney, 555 South Flower, Los Angeles, representing the applicant, said the engineer and architect were present to discuss the project and answer questions. He said they purchased the property from Palos Verdes Properties. Mr. Hughes,asked about the application which was made by Palos Verdes Properties. t Mr. Weber said there was a change of ownership but no new application had been submitted. He said the owner has chosen to follow the same design scheme, etc. He said the City had nothing formally stating the change in ownership and that he would follow up on that. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, said they would get a new application filed by the new owner. He said he represented Palos Verdes Properties and now represents the new client on this project. He said developers and the people they sell to prefer private streets because there is less traf- fic. He felt there was a problem providing guest parking with public streets and pointed out that the taxpayers have to maintain public streets. He said they would need a wider street for a public street and felt there was a lot of wasted pavement. Director Hightower said whether the streets were private or public they must meet whatever standards the City imposes, and that the width did not depend on which type they were. Jim Cooney, Richardson, Nagy, Martin, 4000 Westerly Place, Newport Beach, architect, felt the recreational facilities were best in their presently proposed location as they were somewhat centralized and allow for maximum view from the units. He said they chose private streets because they wanted a narrow street. Re single loaded vs. double loaded streets, he said they were trying to create as many views as possible for the units. He said if the streets were double loaded they would need to be wider be- cause of more traffic congestion. Re intersection design, they felt the volume of traffic generated would not be prohibitive. Re the grading, they were trying to mold the units to the land. Re view obstruction, they would work to eliminate the obstruction of public views. He said they agreed with staff's concern about mitigating noise and landscaping con- straints. He said the units were not designed, but would probably be 1500-1800 square feet on the low side and 2400 square feet on the high side; that the difference in height between units would be about 8 feet; and that they are being designed as adult units. He did not feel it was necessary to provide through access since access is already provided on two other wide streets. He said they looked at three different concepts and chose this one. He said the structures would have stucco, tile roofs, small pane windows, clipped gable roofs, in a Mediterraneanvvillage style. A4Z,La On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Dr. Brown was concerned about the difference in elevation and said a devel- opment seaward of the project at 16 feet in height could impact the views of these units. He felt they must maintain the public view from the Drive and reduce paving. 6/12/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- 0 Mr. McTaggart felt there were other methods which amount of pavement. He felt eliminating units or should be considered. He said they must maintain ble from the public arterials. He suggested that streets should have a divider to cut down on the driveways there were, the greater the hazard and openings should be reduced. He also recommended 40 would cut down on the reducing elevations as many views as possi- the two 80 -foot wide speed. He felt the more felt that the number of signalization. Mrs. Bacharach was concerned with the single loaded streets as proposed and said she would like to see some alternatives. She said she was in favor of public streets, particularly in the coastal area. Mr. Hughes felt the project's priorities were slightly askew as it appeared all the emphasis was placed on maximizing views for the individual units. He said the emphasis should be placed on minimizing the -impact of this development on the rest of the area and maintaining the views from Palos Verdes Drive South. Mr. Hinchliffe said he was not convinced that enough thought had been given to alternate plans. He concurred with Mr. Hughes' comments. Mr. McTaggart pointed out that the buildings in the first tier will not have a view if -anything is built across the street and that the second tier could also lose the view. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the noise study could require any substantial changes. Mr. Weber said it could require that some of the units adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South be moved further away. Mr. Hinchliffe encouraged staff and the applicant to see that the applica- tion is valid so it is not a legal problem. It was the consensus of the Commission for public roads, that the public view rather than unit views be the main concern, and that grading relate to whatever is done with the road pattern in relation to the units. RECESS At 10:35 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m. with the same members present. CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM 1979-80 Director Hightower said by law the Commission must review the list of all proposed public works for the upcoming fiscal year and report to the Director as to conformity with the General Plan. In response to a Commission question, she said the General Plan only designates where the parks should be and what kind of parks they should be, and has nothing to do with scheduling of proposed work, etc. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission reported to the Director that the projects as listed conform to the General Plan. 1979-80 BUDGET ITEMS Director Hightower provided the Com" mission with a breakdown of confer- ences, etc.; total expenses being at the same level as last year as she was directed. She said some of the items were shown for the Commission's information, and she reviewed the objectives. COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Bacharach said she would not be able to attend the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 26 as she will -be on vacation. 6/12/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- ADJOURNMENT At 11:15 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, June 26, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. 6/12/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-