Loading...
PC MINS 19790724M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting July 24, 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:43 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, M6Taggart (late arrival), Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planners Karen Heit and John Emeterio. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of July 10, 1979, were approved as submitted. HEIGHT VARIATION 121 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said this was an appeal 3578 Heroic Drive to the staff approval for the con- Applicant/Landowner: G. Tribelhorn struction of a second story addition. Appellants: John Jacobs, et al He said staff's approval was based on no impairment of a primary view and the other findings. He reviewed the appellants' primary concerns. He said while there is a minor view impair- ment for two neighboring properties, in neither case was the impairment of the primary view. Staff recommended that the appeal be denied. Mr. Weber referred to a letter from the appellants requesting a delay in the meeting. He said it was indicated to him that the appellants did not feel they had enough time to prepare for the meeting and were waiting for the development of photographs to present to the Commission. Mr. Hughes felt that when one files for an appeal one should immediately begin preparing evidence and not wait until the last minute. Bob Marohn, 3567 Heroic Drive, said they did start preparing for the meet- ing but thought there would be more time than there was. He requested that the item be delayed. Mrs. Bacharach said there were a lot of people present to speak. She felt they should take testimony and if they found they were missing a lot of evidence they could continue it. The other Commissioners concurred, and public participation was opened. Robert Marohn, 3567 Heroic Drive, reviewed the list of arguments as shown in the letter of appeal. He said the Bartholomews were on vacation and, therefore, would not be able to present their case this evening. He felt there should be a clear definition of cumulative impact in the ordinance. He said they formed an underground district and were paying for underground utilities in order to preserve the views. He said the structure would im- pact a portion of his primary view of the harbor. Re cumulative impact, he said there were rumors that if this project was approved others would follow suit. He did not feel the applicant had met the criteria for approval. Dr. Brown said the Commission spent many hours of work going over the prob- lem of cumulative impact. He said they tried to get public input but had little public response. Mr. Marohn said until people were confronted by something, they tend to feel it will not happen to them and do not get involved. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 8:05 p.m. Dr. Brown asked what Mr. Marohn considered to be his primary view. Mr. Marohn said his primary view was the view that he happened to be look- ing at from wherever he was in his house. He felt any major view from a family room would constitute a portion of a primary view. Dr. Brown said that primary view was spelled out very specifically in the Code and he also read from the Code the definition for "view lot". Mr. Hughes asked how many people were involved in the underground district. Mr. Marohn said 168 altogether. He said 7 already had underground utili- ties and that 161 were in the lighting district. Jack Jacobs, 3570 Heroic, was concerned about the loss of solar energy potential. He said he had planned for panels on the south side of his house to heat the swimming pool. He said his view would be obstructed by single story construction and felt consideration should be given to single story additions that obstruct views. He felt any view he had should be preserved. Madelyn Creighton, 3562 Heroic Drive, said the neighborhood was single story and this structure would be incompatible. She said it would also substantially block her only ocean views from inside her house. She said the CC&Rs state that these houses should be single stories and did not feel that any variance should be granted which was in conflict with the CC&Rs. Mrs. Bacharach said if the 168 homes in the lighting district were con- sidered as a neighborhood, there were many two-story homes. Mr. Hughes said the Homeowners Association would be the proper body to en- force the CC&Rs. He said the City was obligated to carry out uniform laws throughout the City. He said CC&Rs were private agreements which must be enforced through the courts. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if this issue was taken up with the Homeowners Associa- tion. Mrs. Creighton said it came up so rapidly that the board felt they could not take a stand. Mr. McTaggart said he would be unable to vote because he missed some of the input, but he had some comments. He said there is usually some mechanism in the CC&Rs whereby a person can bring plans before the art jury for varia- t ion . '�*' (,ar ems) Jim Kelly, 3550 Heroic Drive, said his main concern was the loss of pri- mary view from the kitchen window, where his wife spent one-third of her time, and from the family room. He said all of the staff pictures were taken from the back yard. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Emeterio said the Kelly's lot was about 20 feet above the subject property with minor view obstruction from the addition. Mr. Marohn said the one-story homes were distinctively separated from the homes which were two stories. He said if this was granted others would want to go two story, and that it would be a hot issue for the Homeowners Association, which he did not feel should become involved. He felt elected officials should apply judgement instead of a hard and fast ordinance. Mr. Hinchliffe said this ordinance was recently revised and that ample time was given to all residents of the City to participate. Mr. McTaggart said in order for an ordinance to be legal, it must be applied uniformly. 7/24/79 PLANNING pCOMMISSION MINUTES -2- � jr/�w�✓ �.�cJ �/� s��l d Gu.�c.i.�icL2'c��� �fd�2u����( �,����.Q.�c���C�� ,tet`' G��d � ��c.�`-�-oC, �•� ,tom .z�'c� ' Chuck Agnew, 32261 Phantom Drive, said he was the president of the Home- owners Association at the point in time when the utilities went underground. He said they worked long hours bringing that about. He said he was person- ally not going to be affected by this project but was concerned about the precedence. Valerie Tribelhorn, 3578 Heroic Drive, said they have lived in their home for 10 years and have outgrown it. She said they reviewed the possibilities and felt Id- this was the only design that made sense. She said she spoke with the precqent of the Homeowners Association and was told there was no art jury. She said they do not want a further delay because of the rising con- struction costs. She said the roof was squared off at the top to keep the height as low as possible. She did not feel the addition would affect the solar panels which the Jacobs proposed. Re a chain reaction, she felt any- one applying for a height variation would have to go through the same pro- cedures and meet the same criteria. She pointed out that only 5 people objected out of the 50 people notified. Public participation was closed. a"a Lit, ,,6c0*v;1r uC44-0- Mrs. Bacharach . w ---� othered by some of the comments received to- night about the ordinance. J said the City must apply the ordinance fairly, justly, and equally. Mr. Hughes said the ordinance specifically states that in order for the Commission to overrule staff's decision, it must determine that the appli- cant failed to comply with or meet any of the conditions. He suggested they go through each of the conditions and reach a consensus. It was the consensus of the Commission that proper public notice had been given. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed structure was designed and situated to minimize view obstruction since testimony was received that the obstruction would be worse if a single story addition was proposed, the structure has been proposed in a manner that minimizes any view impact, and the structure will not shadow the roof of the next door neighbor. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed structure would not significantly impair primary view because the City incorporated to gain local control, but property owners have the right to do what they can with their property if they do not impair the primary view of someone else. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed structure was not located on a ridge or promontory. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed structure would not impair a view or vista from public right-of-way. It was the consensus of the Commission that there was no significant cumu- lative impact because since there was no obstruction of a primary view, there could not be any cumulative effect. The Commission noted that the key worX was "significant". Mr. Hinchliffe said it was the consensus of the Commission that all of the criteria had been met by the applicant. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny the appeal of Height Variation No. 121 based on the finding that the applicant complied with and met all of the criteria listed in the Development Code for approval of the project. The Commission did not feel there was any reason for post- ponement. RECESS At 9:45 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:53 p.m. with the same members present. 7/24/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Vote on the previous motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSTAIN: McTaggart (because he did not hear all the testimony) ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. Mr. Jacobs asked for a copy of the approved and signed plans. Mr. Emeterio said there would be a copy of the approved plans on file with the City. Mr. Weber said if the applicant wished to submit an extra copy to the City, staff would date stamp and sign it; otherwise, the City's copy could be xeroxed for 10 -.cents a page. GRADING NO. 371 APPEAL Ms. Heit said the applicant was appeal - 3422 Deluna Drive ing staff's denial of a grading appli- Landowner/Applicant: D. Jacobson cation for downslope retaining walls and fill to accommodate a swimming pool and spa and for landscaping. She re- viewed the plans, and noted that the garden walls extended into the front setback. She said the original slope was approximately 50 percent. She reviewed the various reasons for staff's denial, noting that the proposed improvements were not a primary use and the grading for them was excessive, and said grading was not allowed on a slope greater than 35 percent. Staff recommended that the Commission uphold staff's denial and recommend to the applicant that he work with staff on revising the site design. It was further recommended that if denied, the Commission require the applicant to remove all unapproved retaining walls and that the topography be restored to its condition prior to any illegal grading. David R. Jacobson, 3422 Deluna Drive, said the staff report did not read the same as the letter of June 28, denying his grading application. He requested a continuance as he was not prepared for this meeting. The Commission did not feel there was any reason to grant an continuance. They felt the applicant made application and filed an appeal and should be prepared. Dan Van Dorpe, civil engineer, 12900 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, said he and the applicant were not aware of the meeting until very recently. He agreed with staff that there was a conflict between the grading applica- tion and the grading plan. He said he would like to work it out with the staff. RECESS At 10:15 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:17 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Van Dorpe said if he had been made aware of the conflict by the staff, he would have tried to resolve it. In response to several Commission questions, Mr. Van Dorpe said he did not think the original slope was 50 percent; that it was 1,:1 and that the proposed slope would be 50 percent. He said he was a consultant and pre- pared the plans, that he was a registered civil engineer in the State of California. He said he had read the City's zoning code. Mr. McTaggart said the creation of a 50 percent slope was not legal under the current ordinance. Mr. Van Dorpe responded to further questioning, saying he would have to review his files to determine whether the plan was drawn after the work was 7/24/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- started; he had inspected the footing and it was per plan; he did not recall receiving a copy of the letter indicating staff denial and did not read the staff report until this evening and, therefore, was not prepared for this meeting. The Commission asked if he was prepared to discuss any of the issues, and Mr. Van Dorpe said he would if that was what his client wished. Mr. Jacobson said he would not permit any further discussion. Mrs. Jacobson, 3422 Deluna Drive, said they were not prepared to respond to some of the items of the report at this meeting. Mr. McTaggart said the staff report, although a public document, was pre- pared as information for the Commission. He said they were appealing the staff decision and what was stated in staff's letter of denial, not the staff report. Bill Duggins, 3427 Corinna Drive, said he was concerned about the safety aspects and his wife was concerned about the aesthetic aspects. He felt the grading plan had a lot of inaccuracies. He said the slope has his- torically been unstable and he was also concerned about flooding. He showed photographs to the Commission which he felt substantiated evidence of discrepancies with the plan. He was concerned with the structural safety because of no inspections to ensure compliance with the plans. Bette Bacher, 3430 Deluna Drive, was concerned about the safety aspects also. Joyce Frey, 3414 Deluna Drive, said there was a contingency on the sale of her property based on the outcome of the wall. Mr. Van Dorpe said the wall was designed to comply with the Los Angeles Building Code, with which he was very familiar. He said none of inconsis- tencies between the wall and the plan would affect the safety. Mr. Hughes proposed that staff be directed to immediately have the County determine whether or not the wall is safe. He felt an opinion on the geology was necessary from the County. He felt they could continue the item and wait for a report from the County and then proceed with what course of action to take. Mrs. Bacharach felt the applicant should submit a correct and accurate grading plan. Dr. Brown felt the applicant should be advised that there should be no fur- ther grading or wall construction. Mr. Hughes felt staff -should be directed to transmit tonight's transcripts to the City Attorney and seek whatever input and advice he might -have. Mr. Weber said he was uncomfortable about asking Building & Safety to re- view the safety of the wall without accurate plans, which he was sure they would require. He was also unsure how the billing would be handled. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested asking the City Attorney how the City should res- pond to the testimony heard this evening re the safety. Mr. Hughes felt the safety of the wall must be determined because of possi- ble liability. Mr. McTaggart pointed out that if the County determines the wall is unsafe and must be removed, the height of the wall becomes a mute point. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the item was continued until all the requested information comes back to the Commission. Mr. Weber was directed to contact the City Attorney re the liability issue and Building & Safety re the safety of the wall. 7/24/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20 REVISION Mr. Weber bridfly reviewed the back - 30804 Hawthorne Boulevard ground and project description. He Applicant/Landowner: Salvation Army said the request was for a motorized entrance gate to be located on Crest- mont Lane, just north of its inter- section with Palos Verdes Drive South. He reviewed the project considera- tions, and the staff recommendation was for approval of the request. Mr. McTaggart asked about signing and lighting. Mr. Weber said the draft resolution requires approval by the Director of Planning. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about the safety of people waiting at the bus stop. Mr. Hughes wondered if all of the original conditions of the conditional use permit had been met. ;6,te,, X't Ed Freeman, 52335 South Vermont, Torrance, representingADr. Roberts, said the main reason for the gate is to stop through traffic and because there is no security guard. He said the Fire Department required a minimum clearance of 15 feet. He said there is an existing light there and they do not wish to put a sign there. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 79-12, thereby granting the requested revision, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution, which were amended as follows: Addition to condition #3: "Further, the applicant shall be required to coordinate with the Public Works Department and provide an adequate waiting area for Rapid Transit District bus patrons at the bus stop adjacent to Crestmont Lane." Change condition #4 to read: "All existing lighting and/or signs shall be shown on the plans, and any future lighting and/or signs shall be shown on the plans as proposed and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission." Two additional conditions as follows: "Prior to final clearance the applicant shall be required to submit, in writing, a statement that the City or its agents shall not be held responsible for any damage done to said gate in the event it is damaged while entering the property for emer- gencies."; and "Prior to final clearance the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with all conditions estab- lished in Resolution No. 77-01." COMMISSION REPORTS The Commission reactivated the Code Enforcement Sub -committee, with Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hughes as the - Commission members. They requested that this be transmitted to the City Council so that they may appoint two Council members to the sub -committee. ADJOURNMENT At 12:40 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, August 14, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. 7/24/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-