Loading...
PC MINS 19800311M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 11, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Vice -Chairman Bacharach. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, Bacharach ABSENT: Hinchliffe, McTaggart Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Assistant Plan- ners Sandra Lavitt and John Emeterio. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of Febru- ary 26, 1980, were approved with the following amendments: page 6, para- graph 9, should read "...was closed for the evening."; and page 9, 12th complete paragraph, line 3, should read "...in the future they would be more complete." TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12303 Ms. Lavitt said this item was con - 7 Mustang Road tinued from the last meeting to ob- Applicant: Yolanda Kleve tain opinions from the City Attorney and further information. Re the methodology of measuring lot size, it was the City Attorney's opinion that the Code has been correctly interpreted and the City has consistently measured minimum lot size as defined in the Code. He further stated that to change the method now would be legally questionable. Re the Los Angeles County methodology, it was stated that they would exclude area included within the private drive easement from the lot size. The impact to the private roadway was considered minimal and in conformance with the standards of the General Plan. The City Attorney indicated that assuming the capacity of the road was adequate to accommodate projected traffic, the Commission could not deny the map. It was further stated that the Commission could deny the map if the condition of the road was such that it was a danger to public health, safety and welfare. In staff's estimation portions of the road were poor but not to the point of being a deterent to access for emergency vehicles. Re concerns regarding maintenance and improvement requirements for the road, the City Attorney said the City could require that the applicant improve and maintain that portion of the private roadway in front of the subject property, but could not require improvements to other portions of the private roadway. Re site drainage, staff contacted the City Engineer and it was stated that the drain- age must meet the design standards set by the Building Code. Ms. Lavitt said the water would probably be directed to the natural drainage course, but that the final determination would be based on how the lot would be developed. Based on the information obtained, staff could find no major areas of concern that would alter the previous recommendation. Therefore, staff recommended that Tentative Parcel Map No. 12303 be approved subject to the conditions found in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Mr. Hughes asked if it was possible to require as a condition of approval that the current easement be deeded to the City or made a formal right-of- way to the City so that should the roads in the future become public this section would already be public domain. Director Hightower said one of the criteria for the City accepting a street is that it meet the City standards. Mrs. Bacharach was concerned about drainage and suggested a condition for future development. Yolanda Kleve, applicant, said she felt the project met all specifications and requirements and said if the lot was split and developed it would en- hance the area. Kenneth W. Gale, 4136 Lorraine Road, said the neighbors spoke at the last meeting about density, but that most of the lots were around one-quarter of an acre. He said there were not too many half -acre lots which were buildable, but that the subject lot had a gentle terrain. Wallace Lane, 11 Mustang Road, spoke in support of the project. He said his lot was adjacent and was listed as six -tenths of an acre. Bill Ryan, 2 Rockinghorse, expressed concern about the size of the proposed lots and the fact that the City has chosen a Code less restrictive than the County's Code. He said his real concern was with the impacts the lot split would have on the character of the neighborhood. He said the lots on the south side of Rockinghorse were one acre in size. He was concerned that if this request was granted the other lots could also be granted approval and the roads would be used to a greater extent. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Ryan if he had considered requesting a zone change for the neighborhood and wondered if he understood the zoning. Mr. Ryan said he understood the zoning but he did not see where the Code indicates that easements should be counted as part of the lot. Mr. Hughes expressed surprise that a City Council meeting had gone by without the neighbors addressing a zone change. Geraldine Miller, 4 Rockinghorse, referred to an article she read in the newspaper about the County selling easements on which taxes had not been paid. She said the applicant did not own the easement, that the County owned it. Director Hightower said the article was concerning a case on Surry Lane which was an entirely different circumstance. She said that was probably an illegal split in the first place. She advised Mrs. Miller to read her deed which would state that she owns a portion of the road, that the County did not own these easements. Mike Toll, #1 Eastfield, was concerned with the storm drain. He said about five years ago there was a study to include a County storm drain down the back of the subject property. He said he has been trying to get the City of Rolling Hills to install that storm drain. He was concerned that develop- ment may cut off the storm drain and said there was a large amount of erosion. He suggested a requirement for the installation of a storm drain system. Bob Vance, 3 Rockinghorse, said the deed for the project site shows two par- cels, one for the basic parcel and one for the road easement. He said the citizens should be made aware of the fact that the zoning requirements for Rancho Palos Verdes are more relaxed than the County requirements. Mrs. Bacharach said the Development Code and the General Plan were public documents and were adopted after public hearings. She said the Commission must base its decisions on these adopted public documents. Mr. Vance said he was not opposed to the zoning, only to the issue of ease- ments. Re a deposit for the road during construction, Mrs. Miller said the damage to the road would occur after construction. She felt there should be some stipulation for repair of the road. 3/11/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Director Hightower said it could be bonded at the time of construction per- mits. Public participation was closed. Mr. Hughes said the City must uniformly apply all ordinances and must be consistent with the necessary findings. He said the Commission had no con- trol over the zoning which has been established, they are simply looking at the creation of two lots. He said the concerns about potential flooding problems, run-off, control of drainage channels, and maintenance of the road should damage occur are all related to development of the property. Dr. Brown said the Commission must base its decision on the two major docu- ments which took a long time to develop with a lot of public input, those being the Development Code and the General Plan. He said it was mandatory that the Commission -continue to consistently apply all Codes. He said this request meets the Codes re lot size, etc. He said the neighbors were ex- pressing concern about the existing zoning which was under the City Council's control. He felt, however, that there should be conditions for drainage. Mrs. Bacharach concurred. She suggested that the neighbors present their problem with the zoning to the City Council. She said the Commission would need direction from the Council to do a zone change. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, Resolution P.C. No. 80-3 was adopted, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 12303 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", amended as follows: condi- tion no. 4. b. was changed to read "Provide for appropriate drainage struc- tures for contributory drainage from adjoining properties and said property." Mrs. Bacharach advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12404 27865 Palos Verdes Drive East Landowner: John Martin HEIGHT VARIATION 138 APPEAL 5200 Crestwind Landowner: Dr. P. Afsarzadeh Appellants: Mr. & Mrs. R. Goern At 8:30 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. with the same members present. The Commission was in receipt of a letter from the applicant withdrawing the application. No action required. The Commission was in receipt of a letter from the appellants withdrawing their appeal of this application. No action required. GRADING NO. 419 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said following submittal 15 Rockinghorse of this application, the standard grad - Appellant: Frank Parkes ing analysis was done and the proposed grading plan was determined by staff to be unacceptable because of several non - conformities with the Development Code. After a consultation between staff and the applicant re the possibility of revising the proposed project, staff denied the application and, subsequently, that decision was appealed. He said the request was to grade 180 cubic yards of earth in order to accommo- date a pool and barn structure in the rear of the subject property. Staff determined that the ma3ority of the existing grade was in excess of 35 per- cent, that the created slopes along the southerly boundary of the project were in excess of 55 percent, that the barn was located less than 35 feet from a habitable structure, that the sideyard retaining walls were in excess of the 42 -inch maximum height, that the proposed grading was excessive to 3/11/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- that necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, and that the pro- posed grading did not minimize disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours were not reasonably natural. He said the preliminary soils report, attached to the staff report, did not take into consideration the proposed barn. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal for the reasons listed in the staff report. Dr. Brown noted that the application stated 23 percent maximum created slopes and that the total average slope of the site was shown at 26.5 per- cent. Mr. Emeterio said staff did not have computations for the total site. Mr. Hughes said in view of recent decisions it appeared to be the City Council's express desire to allow maximum development of property. Director Hightower said staff has to deal with the present Development Code. She noted that in the specific cases referred to by Mr. Hughes, the lots in question were double lots, were not in excess of 35 percent, and had large areas which Council felt could be used. Frank Parkes, 15 Rockinghorse, said these plans had been in the Planning office for 12 months, had been through five plan changes, and had been before this Commission, and at no time previously had anyone ever brought to his attention the fact that the barn was located too close to his resi- dence. He said he had a map made before any structures were placed on the site and it shows a 30 percent grade. He showed sections of the soils re- port and said the fill section was placed there to provide a level area in the rear yard. He compared his project to the project which had been ap- proved for 11 Rockinghorse. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Parkes said the barn was proposed to be located about 33 1/2 feet from his residence. Mr. Hughes explained that the natural slopes were defined as what exists today, not what existed years ago. Mrs. Bacharach asked how the plans for the house were approved with created slopes greater than 35 percent. Director Hightower said the house plans were approved on March 21, 1974, prior to the present Code. Mr. Hughes asked about 11 Rockinghorse. Director Hightower said the Planning Commission approved the appeal of staff's denial, after the plans were revised. Dr. Brown concurred with the findings for denial as presented in the staff report. In response to questions of Mr. Hughes re the barn structure, Director High- tower said in addition to the City requirement for a 35 -foot distance, it was a County Health Code. She said she did not know if it allowed for devia- tion. Mr. Hughes said the City Council has directed a review of the entire grading ordinance re terracing, retaining walls, etc. for recreational activities, In view of that directive he did not see how the Commission could make any judgement on this project tonight. He suggested tabling the item until such time as the Ordinance Review Subcommittee meets and makes some kind of deci, sion. Mrs. Bacharach shared that concern but did not feel it was fair to the appli- cant to table the request. She recommended that the Commission deny the application since it does not meet the Code and, further, that the Commission 3/11/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- • • recommend no appeal fee for the applicant's appeal to the City Council. She felt the Commission must work with the Code as it is today. Dr. Brown felt the Commission should make a decision based on the Code. He said this project has been going on since March of last year. He said he would rather let the Council overturn the Commission's decision than delay a decision on the project. Mr. Parkes did not understand how the -Commission could approve the #11 Rockinghorse project and deny his. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the neighbors were aware of the proposed project. Mr. Parkes said the only comments from neighbors were re the temporary structures. Director Hightower said there was no requirement for notifying neighbors on grading applications. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny the appeal of Grading Application No. 419 based on the reasons listed in the staff report and that no waiving of fees for appeal be recommended. After Commission discussion the motion was amended to remove any mention of an appeal fee waiver. Mrs. Bacharach asked the applicant if he wished the Commission to table this item. Mr. Parkes said he felt it was the best project for this site. The amended motion was as follows: To deny the appeal of Grading Applica- tion No. 419 based on the following reasons: 1) the proposed barn is in violation of City and County Health Code regulations as it is located less than 35 feet from subject residence; and based on the City's Development Code 2) proposed grading is on slopes greater than 35 percent; 3) proposed created slopes are greater than 35 percent; 4) sideyard retaining walls ex- ceed 42 inches; 5) proposed grading is excessive to that necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot; and 6) proposed grading does not minimize disturbance to the natural contours; finished contours are not reasonably natural. The motion as amended was unanimously carried. Mrs. Bacharach advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Director Hightower said on November 6, Fences 1979 the City Council initiated a Code amendment on fencing and that the Coun- cil ordinance Review Subcommittee dis- cussed the issue and recommended two alternatives to permit six-foot decora- tive fences under the Minor Exception Permit procedure. She explained that the issue was raised after several variance requests were processed for ornamental fences which had been illegally constructed. She said several additional variances were presently being held until this matter is decided. She referred to the memo attached to the staff report from the Subcommittee to the City Council and explained that the Subcommittee recommended this type fencing to be permitted five feet from the property line if there is a sidewalk and to the property line if there is no sidewalk. She also re- viewed alternatives for revision to another section of the Code re overall wall height and suggested that those approaches be discussed along with any others the Commission might think of. Staff recommended that the public hearing be held and continued and that the Commission discuss the issues. Mr. Hughes said there was a decorative wall built out to the sidewalk on Scottmist Road. He said it was recently constructed and appeared to be 3/11/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- • s about five feet high. He said on top of each pillar was a wrought iron light fixture with a 100 watt bulb which he felt represented a traffic hazard. In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower said chain link and other wire-type fences would not be considered decorative. She said a fence was defined as being at least 90 percent open to air and light; otherwise, it is considered to be a wall. She said setbacks were always measured from the right-of-way easement line. She explained that the recommendation was the result of a compromise being made by the City Council Subcommittee. She said one member wanted all decorative fences to be allowed at the property line and the other wanted none to be at the property line. Mr. Hughes was concerned about having fencing to the easement if there is no sidewalk as it would preclude future development of sidewalks. He felt this was inconsistent and the setback should be the same for everyone. Mrs. Bacharach was concerned about the effect of having walls so close to the property line. Mr. Hughes suggested that the Commissioners look at the decorative wall on Scottmist as he felt it would give them a feel for decorative fencing. He said it was different and does change the character. He asked what prompted this proposed amendment. Director Hightower said the Grickis case. She said the City Council felt that fence looked good and was not detrimental; they felt it was a reason- able use of the land. Public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. The Commission felt they should have more information. Director Hightower said she would give them what she gave the Subcommittee. Mrs. Bacharach felt it would be helpful for the Commission to have the list of violations being held so that they could look at them. Mr. Hughes said he would also like a list of cases which went before the City Council so the Commission could see what the Council felt warranted approval. He requested the addresses and decisions of each case. Director Hightower said Councilman Dyda had suggested when the City Council granted Hachikian's variance, that the Subcommittee look at special cases on major highways. Mr. Hughes said the particular fence in question was not just decorative, but also had solid walls for privacy. Director Hightower said they would need criteria for minor exception permit processing. Dr. Brown asked about regulations in other cities. Director Hightower referred to the Rolling Hills Estates' Code section which was attached to the staff report and said most of the other cities do not have anything. She reviewed with the Commission some of the problems with the Rolling Hills Estates' code. Mr. Hughes said the ordinance had been designed to prevent terracing. He felt the Commission needed to look at the objectives first. Mrs. Bacharach suggested that staff compile a review of the fence history and a list of the fences now being held in abeyance. 3/11/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Hughes suggested before the next meeting the Commission look at some examples of decorative fencing and individually list a set of objectives; why walls should exist, reasons for having fences of all kinds, what each member likes or does not like about them, some criteria, a look at the closeness of walls in relationship to their height. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown asked about the lights at the Art Center. He said the light shining on Crenshaw is very bright. Director Hightower said staff had already contacted the Center on one light. Dr. Brown said now it was the -r lights. Dr. Brown said the Council of Homeowners Associations apparently has worked with the City Council subcommittee on a rewritten height ordinance. He said he heard the Council of Homeowners Associations has rewritten the ordinance and submitted it to the subcommittee. Director Hightower said she thought they had been asked to bring in any suggestions, but did not know about them rewriting the ordinance. Dr. Brown asked about people planting trees in the public right-of-way. Director Hightower said technically no one can put anything in the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit from Public Works. She said, however, that this has not really been enforced. Dr. Brown said a new family moved in and planted about eight new t, e es,a2t Sc ttwood and Ocean - ridge. He said this was brought up at the�Ho eowners Association meeting last night and there was concern because the trees will grow very tall. Director Hightower said she would report it to Public Works. Mrs. Bacharach expressed concern that there was no requirement for notifying neighbors on grading applications. She felt the neighbors of Mr. Parkes would be interested in what he is proposing. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower said she would be Acting City Manager for a three to four month period and that Gary Weber would be Acting Director of Planning during that time period. Re the Requests for Proposals for preliminary proposals on the civic center, she said interviews were held today and a firm was selected to be recom- mended to the City Council at its next meeting for contract. She said the study should begin April 1 and take about four months. She said it would specifically concern the City Hall but also a Community Building and poten- tial for public safety in the future. She said at this point she did not know what kind of public involvement there would be. She said the Parks and Recreation Committee would need to be involved and wondered if the Commission was interested in being involved through joint meetings or public hearings. The Commissioners felt they should participate. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the status of the subregion study. Director Hightower said staff received preliminary material, was not happy with it, and shipped it back. She said this would set the schedule back a couple weeks more. Mr. Hughes asked about the Holtzman case. Director Hightower said the City Attorney sent a letter to the District Attorney, who then requested the history of the case. She said the file was received from the City Attorney and the Code Inspector was compiling it for the District Attorney. She said there was a new District Attorney representing the area now who happens to live in the City. She said he would be filing for removal of the tennis court. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the Coastal Plan. Director Hightower said a grant has been applied for and would be heard by the Coastal Commission on the 18th. At this point she did not know exactly what the schedule would be. 3/11/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Dr. Brown asked if a letter was received from the Mesa Palos Verdes Home- owners Association re the stone quarry. Director Hightower said yes, and that the issue has been sent to the County for rehabilitation action. Mr. Hughes asked about the use of banners, etc. at the synagogue. Director Hightower said they have been informed previously that they need sign permits. Mr. Hughes asked if anyone would be interested in video-taping one of the Commission meetings. The Commission discussed this possibility. At 10:50 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 25, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 3/11/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-