Loading...
PC MINS 19800325M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 25, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Commissioner Hughes. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart LATE ARRIVALS: Bacharach, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hinchliffe arrived at 7:35 p.m. during discussion of the minutes. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried, with Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hindhliffe abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of March 11, 1980, were approved with the following amendments: page 7, paragraph 2, last line, should read "...it was the side lights."; and page 7, paragraph 4, line 6, should read "...at the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association..." TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11896 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 52 West side of Palos Verdes Drive West at City boundary Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Kildiszew meeting on or before the second Mr. Thompson said this request was for a two -lot subdivision in an RS -1 (RPD) zone. He reviewed the back- ground of the project and said the public hearing was held by the Commission on October 23, 1979, and that the item had been continued to a regular meeting in March, 1980. Mrs. Bacharach,arrived at 7:38 p.m. Mr. Thompson said the consensus of the Commission at the October meeting was to wait for input from the coastal planning study and to review the structural locations prior to decision on this project. He said Sedway/Cooke, planning consultants, have submitted to the City their Preliminary Development and Design Guidelines for subregions 1 and 7 of the coastal zone. He reviewed the guidelines that relate to this pro- ject, as listed in the staff report. He said the applicant's architect had submitted site plans and sectionals of the two proposed residences and that he indicated that the elevations of the homes would be presented at the meeting. Staff was of the opinion that the application complies with the Preliminary Development and Design Guidelines and with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Staff, therefore, recom- mended that the Commission approve the tentative parcel map and conditional use permit subject to the draft resolutions and conditions. He called attention to condition #2 of the conditional use permit resolution which requires that a final site plan be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval, and that the locations of the residences be substantially as shown on the site plan approved by the Planning Commission; also, that the ridgeline of each residence be limited to the height as shown on the site plan. In response to questions of Dr. Brown, Mr. Thompson said the Commission was being asked to approve the locations of the structures and ther`,, heights proposed only. He said other structures (tennis court, swimming pool, etc.) were not within what Development Code permits and should be removed. He said approval was for the primary structures only. In response to questions of'Mrs. Bacharach, Mr. Thompson said staff's reference to nonconformities with regard to setbacks, grading, etc., was related to accessory structures only, not the primary use. He said the adjacent zoning in Palos Verdes Estates was R-1, 15,000 square feet minimum lots. In response to a question of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson said the planning study did not show any access ways at the subject location, and that condition #27 was rewritten because of that. Mr. Weber said the City initially expressed a desire that the planning consultants look at trail access ways throughout the subregion. He said it was pointed out that the possibility should not be eliminated at this location. He said the consultants indicated that they were not at that level of detail to determine one way or another at this point. He said the consultants' study indicated no significant views across the subject site. He said an analysis of the public view was done from Palos Verdes Drive West. Public hearing was re -opened. Don Hendrikson, architect, 43 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes Estates, said the site plans came about by trying to develop homes to take advantage of the site and should not block views. He said lot B was well below Palos Verdes Drive West and that lot A was developed to try to take advantage of the site. He said the house to the south was higher and was oriented to the west and should not be affected. He said everything on the north was parkland. Dr. Robert Pratt, 3282 Paseo Del Mar, Rancho Palos Verdes, said the access road was private. He wondered what evidence there was that applicant had legal access to that road. He said if the access road was not to be used, what would be the access to the property. He said he was one of the three families that currently use and maintain the road. Mr. McTaggart said one of the conditions of approval requires proof of access and that access be delineated on the final map. Dr. Pratt was concerned about maintenance of the road. He said he was not trying to block use of the road, but wanted to'be sure it would be maintained. He said the three properties currently using the road all contribute towards its maintenance. He said the road easement is stated in his deed. Mr. Thompson said condition #25 requires a bond for future improvements to the private access drive. Dick Kildiszew, 1736 Chelsea, Palos Verdes Estates, said he was currently being assessed for the road; that it is shown on his tax bill. He said they could submit the original papers to the City. He said to his knowledge he does have access from a portion of that private road. �3n motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously 'carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes expressed concern about the access road. He said the applicant stated the road is part of his property, but the site plan does not show that to be the case. Mr. Weber said to the City's knowledge there was an access easement to the approximate location as shown on the City maps. He said he was not aware of the access being part of the applicant's property. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said in terms of determining the adequacy of the access to the property, following approval of the tentative map, the map would be sent to the County Subdivision Section of the County Engineer. He said they would review everything including meets and bounds and would indicate where access easements were available. He said this would be done prior to approval of the final map. He said a lot of easements do not have maintenance agreements. He said the Commission could provide a condition requiring that the applicant not oppose any reasonable maintenance set up by the homeowners that do,have access. He said he was working out wording for repairs to the 3/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- road caused by damage during development. Dr. Brown said the Commission does not know what CC&Rs exist and do not have an accurate survey. He asked if a mistake was found would the Commission be informed. Mr. McTaggart was concerned because the project is located in the Coastal zone where the City wants good control over development. He said this project was not pinned down sufficiently for the Commission to make a decision at this time. He felt the Commission needed more information concerning site lines from the roadway showing the different elevations. He said a good view analysis was necessary. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said the fact that the topo survey was signed by a registered civil engineer from South Bay Engineering indicated to him that the topography and meets and bounds were reasonably correct. Mr. McTaggart was concerned that South Bay Engineering did not spell out evidence of an easement. He felt the Commission could not pin down a site location without knowing exactly where the site begins. Mr. Thompson said the Commission could add a condition "requiring that the applicant bring site plans to the Planning Commission with a view analysis prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. McTaggart felt this was an important project because of its location in the coastal zone. He said South Bay Engineering should be able to ascertain where the easements are. He said the applicant should submit a revised map showing the easement. He was also concerned about the park- land strip. Mrs. Bacharach said she was uncomfortable with the site plan, as presented. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the legal constraints. Mr. Thompson said May 15 was the deadline date for decision on the project. Mr. Hinchliffe said the Commission wanted further view analysis and the applicant should clear up the issue of the easement. He said the applicant should not show the swimming pool and tennis court on the map,, only the primary structures. Mr. Thompson suggested that the applicant submit sectionals from Palos Verdes Drive West. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, Tentative Parcel Map No. 11896 and Conditional Use Permit No. 52 were tabled pending a view analysis based on sectionals from the Palos Verdes Drive West medians to the coastline and the issue of the easements being resolved. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Mr. McTaggart proposed changing the Fences order of the agenda items by moving this item to follow the last item under New Business. As there were no objections, Mr. Hinchliffe so ordered. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 420 Mr. Weber reviewed the background and 30008 Knollview description of the project. He said Appellant: Kay Ayers late -this afternoon when the staff coordinator was looking at the plans, he found a major error on staff's part. He illustrated how the error was made on the chalkboard. He said the map did not show the entire site and in reality the front property line was on the other side, which makes the wall an upsloping wall instead. Staff, therefore, recommended approval, and Mr. Weber said the appeal fee would be refunded. He said, however, that in looking at the overall in- tent of the Grading Ordinance and trying to visualize the visual character of the wall, staff did have some conflicts with this particular wall. He said if this was an interior lot it would be an automatic approval, but 3/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- being a corner lot the wall allows for public view. He said based on the location of the addition, a good portion of the 8 -foot wall should not be viewed from the public street. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the landscaping could be conditioned, and Mr. Weber said yes. Mr. Hughes said this was one of the things discussed by the Subcommittee in reviewing the Grading ordinance. He was concerned that the ordinance was not working very well. He said whether it is the front or the side, the wall was still there, that there was no change in the impact on the hillside. Dr. Brown said he was comfortable with the staff recommendation for approval as long as proper -landscaping was done. Mrs. Bacharach was comfortable with the wall at this location. She felt once the addition was there the wall would not be noticed. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to grant the appeal, thereby approving Grading Application No. 420. Roll call vote was d's follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT'*-., None In response to an audience question, Mr. Weber said Environmental Impact Report No. 16 for a 47 -unit development ad3acent to Ladera Linda School was scheduled to be heard by the Environmental Committee on April 9. He said geologic problems cited in the EIR necessitate a lot of grading. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 57 Mr. Thompson said this request was Reservoir #20 - Crest Road @ for the construction of a water pump Eastfield station in an RS -2 zone. He said Applicant: California Water the General Plan designation was Service Company Infrastructure Facility. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the request subject to the draft resolution and conditions. He said the City Manager of Rolling Hills cailed today re one other change, that the water pump station be set 50 feet back from Crest Road instead of 30 feet, as proposed. He said this was a recommendation by the Planning -i -Commission of Rolling Hills based on the fact that that is the required setback in their City. Mr. Thompson explained that he sent the information concerning this application to Rolling Hills in order to have input from -them for tonight's meeting. He said the project would have more imbact oh -their city and really no impact on Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. Brown asked if the concern -,of Rolling Hills was with the visual impact or the noise. Mr. Thompson said they were concerned with both. He said the visual concern was with viewing it from the road itself. He said the applicant has met with the Rolling Hills_'> City Manager and it was his understanding that the applicant was in agreement with the issues of concern. Public hearing was opened. Chuck Nollenberger, 4412 238th Street, Torrance, California,WAter Service Company, said they have reviewed the recommendations of the City of Rolling Hills and would comply. He said the 50 -foot setback was a new issue and he would Tike the chance to discuss it with the Department. Re the noise factor, he said there was some questionabout where the noise level would be taken from. He said they wished to cooperate with both cities. Mr. Thompson said the noise level would be measured from the property line. 3/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. Hughes asked if the applicant was confident that they would not exceed the dB(A). He guessed that the ambient noise in that area was at least 60 dB(A). He felt a better definition was needed on that condition. F. C. Ripley, 91 Crest Road, said he has lived there for 31 years. He was in support of the "request. He said they own two home sites there, one of which is vacant, and would like screening along the fence. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. Thompson said the City of Rolling --Hills has a noise ordinance calling for 35 dB(A). Mr. Hughes did not feel this condition could ever be met, that there was no way to not exceed 35 dB(A). He suggested that staff check out the ordinance and also check the method of measurement. Mr. Nollenberger said he would run this through the engineer, also. He said they were proposing two 24 horse power pumps mounted in adobe ,%�� He said they needed 1250 gallons minimum to meet the requirements of the new subdivision and that one pump would not meet that requirement. Mr. Hughes said the staff should check with Rolling Hills and the applicant was going to check with his engineer. He said between them they should come up with some language for that condition that would work. He said they would need a condition to limit the noise to some level above the current ambient. Mr. McTaggart felt the reference to Rolling Hills in condition #1 should be eliminated. The Commission agreed to change condition #1 to read "...plot plan and elevations as approved by the Planning Commission on March- 25, 1980." On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the item was tabled. The Commission complimented Mr. Thompson on the staff report format. RECESS At 9:35 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:47 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Hinchliffe distributed copies of a letter which had been sent to his colleague concerning appearance of fairness. He discussed the case of Woodland Hills Association vs. Los Angeles City Council. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Mr. Thompson explained that the item Fences was continued from the last meeting after discussing the information submitted by staff. He said the Commission requested additional information on the history related to the proposed amendment and the status of related fence violations. Staff researched the records and combined the information requested in chronological order, attached to tonight's staff report. He also referred to the staff report and attachments of March 11. Staff recommended that the public hearing be continued and the Commission discuss the issues. Mrs. Bacharach discussed the sites that she inspected. She felt the hillside fences were generally very nice. She said she noticed a basic difference between decorative fencing and what the City refers to as walls. She said she found the closed wall effect objectionable, but the decorative fencing was aesthetically pleasing. She said she was more concerned about regulating walls than regulating decorative fencing. She said she did not care for Hachikian's wall, but felt it waslo�-�� thoroughfare. Dr. Brown agreed with Mrs. Bacharach's comments about walls vs. decorative fencing, but disagreed about Hachikian's wall being fine because it is on 3/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- • a major thoroughfare. He felt "busy corner" must be defined. He said he liked the idea of wrought iron fencing but did not care for the appearance of chain link. Mr. Hughes said there were a number of large upsloping lots on Granvia Altamira which back up to Monero Drive. He said decorative pillars with chain link strung between was appropriate along there. He felt the chain link fencing there was functional, practical and did the job. He said he would rather see chain link than block wall or solid wood. Mrs. Bacharach said no ordinance would cover every case without exception. Mr. Hinchliffe said the City's policy has been to avoid aesthetics and he was therefore not sure the Commission should be dealing with aesthetics. Mr. Hughes said the main purpose of fencing was to provide privacy and/or security. He said with that purpose in mind, a wall should be used to provide the maximu% and that is -already provided for in the existing ordinance. He said decorative fencing would not provide much privacy and that it was not necessary to have fencing up to the property line to obtain security. Dr. Brown felt the major reason for fencing was for aesthetics. Mrs. Bacharach said the current Code does not cover a three-foot wall in the front yard with decorative wrought iron fencing on top. Mr. Hughes felt it was in direct conflict with the General Plan with regard to rural area. Mrs. Bacharach said there were two major types of lots in the City: hillside lots and new tract lots. Mr. Hughes agreed about hillside lots vs. tract lots. He said, however, that most of the people in the City live on traditional lots, and felt the City should control what is applicable to the majority. He said there is a variance or minor exception permit procedures for the exceptions. Mrs. Bacharach suggested different laws for different areas, possibly with overlay control districts over hillside areas. She did not feel any fencing should ever-� permitted all the way to the property line. The Commission discussed possible wording to ensure that no fences would be permitted closer than five feet from the front property line. Barbara Hein, Councilperson, said the Council did not want to see rows of solid walls up and down the streets. Mr. McTaggart said another concern was view obstruction. Dr. Brown said he was satisfied with the wording in the March 11 staff report once the issue of the property line measurement is resolved. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the item should be continued in order to formulate the wording dealing with the measurement problem and a definition of decorative fencing. Mr. Hughes said his lot runs street to street and it did not make sense that he would be able to put chain link fencing along Hazalridge but not in the front along San Nicolas. Mr. McTaggart said the topography make a difference. Councilwoman Hein said the Council also wanted input from the Commission on whether or not corner lots should be handled differently than interior lots. 3/25/$0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-- Mr. Hughes said the City was proposing changing the ordinance -to fit a list of projects existing now and will have to change',it-again later to fit some new violations. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested the Commission come totally prepared the next time to make a decision. Due to the difficulty of meeting all of the four required findings for a vari- ance, Mr. McTaggart suggested that all fence applications fall under a minor exception permit. Mr. Weber pointed out they would still need criteria for a decision. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if staff would assist in coming up with some wording pertaining to the measurement from the property line. Dr. Brown said the Commission should continue its discussion re hillside vs. flat lots. Mr. Hughes felt if the Commission was inclined to make a change to the ordinance that it should very nearly be a removal of all restrictions or remain the same. He said whether a fence is decorative or not, it still does the same thing. The item was continued to the next meeting. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said the Commission was in receipt of a revised height ordinance which had apparently been drafted and submitted by the Council of Homeowners Associations with some suggested changes to that portion of the code. He reviewed some of these suggested changes with the Commission. Mr. Weber said Prima Associates, Inc., was chosen as the civic center pre -architectural consultant at the last City Council meeting. He said they would be contacting various bodies in the near future for input. Mr. Weber said he had budgeted for the Commissioners to attend the Planning Commissioners Institute conference or have a seminar instead like they did two years ago. Mrs. Bacharach asked about having a combination. She said one or two members could attend the conference and the Commission could also have a seminar. Mr. Hinchliffe felt if they could get an appropriate person, he would prefer a seminar over the conferencq but felt they should retain some flexibility to go either way. COMMISSION ITEMS Mr. Hughes said there was a subcommittee meeting on Saturday at which he met with Councilwoman Hein and staff to review the Grading Ordinance. He out- lined what he perceived as the problem. He felt it was not so much a prob- 16m with the ordinance, but rather a change in philosophy. In his opinion, it was necessary to find out from the Council if there is, in fact, a major change in philos6phy. He said in the past if someone lived on a steep slope, they could have the primary structure but not tennis courts, etc., unless it met the Code. What the subcommittee agreed to do was go back to the City Council and ask them if the philosophy now is that recreational facilities take precedence over keeping -grading down. He said they were trying to arrange with --the _C­itv_C.ouncil_-a�-me&tin_g to discuss their_ intent. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the building next to Ner Tamid. Mr. Weber said the County would be contacting the Code Inspector On its status. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the law suit against Tiburon re one dwelling unit per acre zoning. Mr. Hinchliffe said Rancho Palos Verdes was contributing $1000 in that law suit. Mrs. Bacharach asked what was happening on Palos Verdes Drive East. Mr. Weber said the Public Works crews were out cleaning,and he thought that was what it might have been. 3/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Mr. McTaggart said since the—Coastal Commission raised the density in the City's Coastal Plan and in view of the recent happenings --in the newspaper concerning certain Coastal Commission members, he suggested that perhaps the City Council should ask for reconsideration. Mr. Weber said the Coastal Commission did not raise density. ADJOURNMENT At 11:35 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Monday, April 7, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 3/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -8-