Loading...
PC MINS 19790925M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 25, 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe LATE ARRIVAL: Bacharach ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planner John Emeterio, and Code Inspector Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mr. Hinch- liffe abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of September 11, 1979 were approved with the following amendments: page 5, last paragraph, first line, should read "...be a zoning map..."; and page 6, paragraph 2, last line, should read "...said he voted against sending that letter." TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8744 Mr. Weber said pursuant to the Commis - Modification to conditions sion's discussion at the last meeting Applicant/Landowner: L.& J. Miller the Public Works Director, Director of Planning, and applicant met and worked out the wording of the conditions. He said staff was recommending that the conditions proposed in the staff report be substituted in Exhibit "A" of the resolution. He said the applicant sub- mitted a copy of a covenant. He said the attorney has some concern with the wording of condition 6.C., as proposed, as it would require street improve- ments with any further subdivision of lot #1, whether or not the new lot would front on Via Victoria. He said the attorney felt it was the intent of the Commission to apply this condition only if a subdivision occurs which fronts on Via Victoria. Mr. Weber said he discussed this issue with the Public Works Director, who felt the wording should remain as shown in the staff report. Staff recommended that the wording in the staff report be approved as written. Mr. Hughes asked if condition 12 required the posting of a bond for condi- tion 6.C. also. Mr. Weber said no, that it just covered the costs for this subdivision. Mr. Hughes said he would feel more comfortable changing the wording of con- dition 12 to specifically apply to conditions 6.A. and 6.B. Mr. Hughes fur- ther said it was his intent at the last meeting for condition 6.C. to be as it reads in the staff report. Lorenzo C. Miller said they felt it was unreasonable to require the improve- ment of Via Victoria if they subdivided a lot off of Palos Verdes Drive West. He said they were willing to dedicate a strip there for future development, but the expense would be tremendous and it would create a hardship. He said they would be required to tear down their house in order to accomplish the improvements. Dr. Brown said he did not recall any statements at the last meeting concern- ing any impact to the house. Mr. Hughes said it was his intent that further subdivision of the lot would require improvement of the balance of the street and pointed out that the attorney's request would leave no mechanism for getting the improvements done in the future. He felt giving an extension was showing that the Com- mission was not trying to create an unreasonable hardship. The other Commissioners concurred. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to substitute the conditions (as shown in the staff report) in Exhibit "A" of the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 8744. Mr. Hughes requested that condition 12 be changed to read "...pursuant to conditions 6.A. and 6.B." Dr. Brown and Mr. McTaggart agreed to include that change in the motion. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hinchliffe ABSENT: Bacharach Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Coun- cil within fifteen calendar days. For the benefit of anyone in the audience who was present to speak on the last agenda item under New Business, Mr. Weber announced that he had been in contact with the City Attorney re a recent court case which could affect item VI. C. of tonight's agenda and said that, therefore, staff was recom- mending that the Commission continue the item to the next meeting. GRADING NO. 380 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said the most recent appli- 2810 Colt Road cation from the appellant was a request Landowner/Appellant: F. Boettcher for approximately 250 cubic yards of grading and a downslope retaining wall with a maximum height of 8 feet. He reviewed the background of the project, saying the initial application had been denied by staff and appealed to the Commission. At the meeting of August 13 the applicant was instructed by the Commission to work with staff to come up with an acceptable alternative plan. He said the applicant sub- mitted a revised plan to staff which was determined to be acceptable, but following that a second revision was submitted which again proposed an 8 - foot retaining wall. He said the applicant then requested another appearance before the Commission. He reviewed the applicant's primary bases of appeal, as shown in the staff report. Staff felt that adequate equestrian usage was possible on the lot by remaining within the limits of the Code and recom- mended that the appeal be denied. John Petefkovich', keptd-senting 4 --he appl_i_&­aht,--"said _the wall- was an extension on either side of the structure and that they wanted to not disturb the natural vegetation and trees. He said with this method they were probably saving 200 yards of cut over the intermediate plan which showed 530 cubic yards. He said the original plan showed 630 cubic yards of cut. He said in order to minimize grading and reduce impact to the slope, they were pro- posing this wall height. Mr. McTaggart said the reason for having the 42 -inch height limit was for aesthetic consideration. He said the average height of this wall was about 4 feet. Mr. Hughes felt the original plan left some clear alternative approaches. He said this alternative was an exchange of grading for the wall without compromising the size of the building. Dr. Brown concurred with Mr. Hughes and the staff report. 9/25/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hinchliffe concurred also. He said instead of creating an area which minimizes grading, the applicant has enlarged the structure. Mr.­Pet-e�- pointed out that the applicant cannot place the stable where he had originally planned and that this was an alternative location for the stable. Bernice Boettcher said because of easements there was no other location to put the barn and still have room to work the horses. Mr. Hughes said the intent of the ordinance was to keep grading and retain- ing walls at a minimum. He said he personally would have difficulty justi- fying this project. Dr. Brown said he would be willing to continue the item again and let the applicant work with staff if he so desired. Mr. Hughes said it appeared to be the consensus of the Commission to deny the application. He asked if the applicant was willing to work with staff some more or preferred that the Commission take a vote tonight, noting that the decision.could be appealed to the City Council. Mr. -Pet -&w;. said they were willing to work with staff, but wanted better direction as to what the Commission wanted. Mr. Hughes said the Commission agreed at the last meeting to allow the wall to be slightly higher in some places, but not an 8 -foot wall. Mrs. Bacharach arrived at 9:05 p.m. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried, with Mrs. Bacharach abstaining, the item was continued to the next meeting. Mr. Hinchliffe said the Commission was looking for a solution and that the primary problem was with the walls. At 9:15 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:18 p.m. with the same members present. The Commission reversed the next two agenda items. SIGN PERMIT NO. 78 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for 40 Miraleste Plaza the approval of existing signage at Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Hawke's Chevron Station, described as a logo sign attached to one of the two light standards, a price sign and a credit card sign attached to the second light standard, and a third sign recently attached to the second light pole advertising "phone". She re- viewed the background of the sign enforcement for this site and reviewed the Code considerations. Staff recommended denial of the existing signs and a requirement for immediate removal. Carl Rodeheaver, American Permit Service, representing Chevron, showed pic- tures of the site. He said they did not know who put up the phone sign and thought perhaps it was the phone company. He said the price sign was re- quired by State law. He said due to the curves, trees, etc., the signs, as placed now, are only visible for 250 feet. He said the credit card sign could be moved to the window and the price sign could be moved to the pole with the main sign. He felt that would be more acceptable for that parti- cular site than a monument sign. He said the problem was that the signs were now located at the only place where they are visible. He said the 9/25/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- beginning of the island (required by law) was 5 feet from the start of pub- lic property. He said State law requires that the price sign be visible on the site. Mr. Hughes said the existing sign was hanging over the sidewalk and that no signs are permitted in the public right-of-way. Mrs. Bacharach felt there could be other signage for this location and said the internal signs are visible to her at the same time any of the other signs are. Dr. Brown concurred. Mr. McTaggart said the intent of the Code was to create uniformity for the City. He felt a sign which conformed to the Code would be visible. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and � carried, Sign Permit No. 78 was denied and the applicant was directed to remove the existing signs within 45 days. 129,4. � G�c� �•Lv .a�G�,r�-��(.,G�/��c��-moi, Lu-�1u-y�.�/� d�i � �`��'�� SIGN PERMIT NO. 77 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for the 2800 block Palos Verdes Drive East placement of two entrance -signs for a Applicant: Stonegate Homeowners subdivision of 12 residential lots. She said several accidents have occurred in the past as a result of sudden slow- ing to turn into the entrance of the subdivision, due to the lack of adequate intelligible addresses which exist all along Palos Verdes Drive East. She said due to the unique traffic problem and lack of high visibility, it was recommended that two signs be placed at the entrance to the subdivision so that its location can be seen by both north and southbound traffic. She said proof of the maintenance provision for the sign shall be submitted to the Environmental Services Department prior to the new installation. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said the two existing signs were very difficult to read and will be removed entirely. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve Sign Permit No. 77 for two signs, subject to the following conditions: 1) The existing signs shall be removed before erection of the new signs; 2) A provision for maintenance shall be submitted which is acceptable to staff; and 3) Sign letters shall be replaced within 45 days or the entire sign shall be removed. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11819 Mr. Weber said staff has been advised 5383 Rolling Ridge Road by the City Attorney of a recent State Applicant/Landowner: G.& M. Schuler Supreme Court decision which requires adequate noticing of property owners within a specific area prior to public meetings. Staff recommends continuing this item to the next meeting to allow for adequate noticing. 9/25/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the item was continued to the next meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes said the City Attorney's office advised him that the Planning Commission should not send a letter to the State review board for civil engineers because of potential liability and slander. He said he did not want to do anything until he received a firm answer from the City Attorney. He explained that anything the Commis- sion does as a body, it does as a public agency, and everything would be a matter of public record. ADJOURNMENT At 10:37 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, October 9, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. 9/25/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-