Loading...
PC MINS 19801113M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting November 13, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: Hughes Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planner John Emeterio, and Code Inspector Alice Bergquist. CONSENT CALENDAR At the request of Mr. Hinchliffe, Dr. Brown removed from the Consent Calen- dar the minutes of the meeting of October 28, 1980 (the only item under Consent Calendar) and moved it to follow New Business. SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT 13 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said the request was to 27067 Silver Moon Lane maintain four horses and the appro- Appellants: Richard Berg, et al priate corral and stable area on a Landowner/Applicant: R. Buchholtz 2.27 acre site with an existing single family residence. He said the site slopes down to the toe of the canyon to the north and east and is directly adjacent to a bridle trail along the easterly property line. He said a preliminary slope analysis indicates that the area of the proposed corral/barn is less than 35 percent. He said staff's approval of the project was appealed for the reasons stated in the appeal letter. He reviewed the required findings for the granting of such a permit and staff's responses to each of those findings, as listed in the staff report. Based on the size, location, and topography of the site, staff felt it could easily accommodate the requested animals and the accom- panying stable/corral improvements. Staff also felt that the conditions placed on the original approval were adequate to control the proposed use and, if need be, revoke the permit. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Special Animal Permit No. 13 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and deny the appeal. Dr. Brown explained procedures and opened the public hearing. Richard Berg, 4820 Falcon Rock Place, said there were 50 appellants, that they all shared the cost of the appeal. He presented an overview of the concerns. He said they felt there were procedural errors in the processing of this application: 1) the application did not conform to the Code which requires a sketch showing all of the structures both on the property and on adjacent properties; 2) the staff findings were not supported by evidence in the record, that the burden has shifted from the applicant proving there will be no detriment to the appellants proving there will be a detriment; and 3) the process should have complied with CEQA which requires environ- mental assessment for discretionary permits. He felt this permit consti- tuted a conditional use permit. He said other concerns of the neighborhood were that the introduction of horses in the area would substantially change the character of the neighborhood; that the people who bought homes in the area chose a non -horse area; that it was an opening wedge for other people to request horses; that the improvements would substantially change the un- spoiled nature of the canyon, thereby affecting the existing view of the canyon; that the odor would be carried all around by the wind pattern in the area; that there be a viable fly control program; and that there will be a natural run-off from that area. He said the concern with flies goes hand-in-hand with the manure and odor. He was also concerned about erosion caused by the resultant removal of vegetation once the horses are there. He further expressed concern about maintenance of the bridle trail and the potential public health problem. He said they were concerned about the sub- stantial increase of heavy commercial traffic with the trucking in of the horses, hay, etc.; that there was concern about a greater incidence of acci- dents. Mr. McTaggart said the ordinance was designed to provide a more viable way to allow for horses in areas which were not in a "Q" district and was not of the same magnitude of a conditional use permit. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Berg said the file did not con- tain evidence supporting the findings of the staff. Mr. McTaggart said many of the elements were addressed in the ordinance itself such as required distances from residences, lot size, etc. Mr. Weber said staff uses many sources which are not written down specifi- cally in the file such as the Development Code, the Health Code, and the General Plan. Tom Connor, 27011 Silver Moon Lane, expressed concern about the safety as- pects. He said the area was good for children but that this project would cause a change in the vehicular traffic on the street. He said there would be truck deliveries and pick-ups and that the trucks would have a difficult time turning around and may have to back out. He was very worried about the safety of the children. Norman Lauchner, 27016 Silver Moon Lane, said he has lived near horse prop- erty in the past and bought this property because it was -.not in a horse area. He felt approving this permit would increase the value of the applicant's property but diminish the value of his property. Paul Elkins, 26840 Diamondhead Lane, said 80 percent of his view was out over the canyon and that they see the ridge in question. He felt the corral would be an eye sore. Gail Lauchner, 27016 Silver Moon Lane, expressed concern about the safety of the children. She felt horses would be an attractive nuisance. Joe Kadera, 4829 Browndeer, said his property adjoins the site in question. He said they would be looking into the stable area and he preferred his view as it is. William Cords, 26912 Diamondhead Lane, said he moved here because he did not want to live near horses. He was concerned because his wife had aller- gies. He was concerned about health problems from pesticides and rodents. Louis Tallman, 4813 Falcon Rock Place, said horse owners do not notice the smell, only the neighbors do. He said the odor would have an environmental effect on the area and would change the character of the neighborhood. Paul Wong, 4814 Falcon Rock Place, said there was a special wind condition in the area and he was concerned about odor and flies. He felt the granting of this permit would affect the marketability of his home. Frank Rast, 26932 Diamondhead Lane, was concerned about property values. He felt there was a place for horses but not in a residential area such as this. Dick Buchholtz, 27067 Silver Moon Lane, applicant, said four horses would eat four bales of hay per week, which would be delivered in a light truck. He said the manure could be picked up by the regular sanitation truck for an additional fee. He said the closest neighboring house was about 300-350 feet away. He said he was concerned about fly control and odor himself. He 11/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- said they have a drainage plan which was submitted to the City. He said the property was originally zoned for horses by the County and that there were horses right around the corner on lots much smaller than his. He said they have submitted a fly control program and that they have taken all of the proper steps. He said there were 80 signatures of people with no objection to the project, many of whom were adjacent to his property. He said the proposed structures would be an attractive addition and would add to the rural nature of the canyon. Re grading he said there was no cut or fill that would exceed three feet. He said he was just as concerned as everyone else about the safety aspects. He said the horses would be taken out via the bridle trail and that there would be no horse trailers. He showed additional photographs to the Commission. David Buchholtz said he monitored the wind with gages over a 20 -day period and submitted the written report to staff. He said they had submitted a vicinity map indicating distances from all houses. He said they would take the responsibility to maintain the easement. He said his plan was for 50 - percent removal of manure from the premises. He said he has seen horses on the trail which adjoins his property. He said the only time a horse would have to be trailered in would be if they were being brought in from a very distant place or in case of an emergency such as if the animal was sick. He said they did not intend to board horses. Dick Buchholtz said they would not object to having as a condition of ap- proval that there be no trailer except for unusual circumstances. Mr. McTaggart said during the wetter time of the year more manure than normal would have to be removed. He said a condition requiring 50 -percent removal would be very difficult to enforce. David Buchholtz said if there was any dust it would be from the temporary movement of the horses and not a permanent problem. He discussed land- scaping and fencing. Jim Hensley, 27060 Silver Moon Lane, said he has lived near horses in the past and has not been bothered by them. He did not feel that this project would lower the property values in the area. Mr. Berg said he submitted a written copy of the summary of his comments to be included in the record. He said the proposed location of the stable and corral is on a promontory, visible from all locations. He said the plan on display showed -the stable to be larger than what was originally proposed. If granted, he suggested that the size be identified so that it does not continue to grow. He suggested a condition stating that if any conditions are violated the permit would be revoked. He said the appellants have raised a lot of substantial questions which have not been answered. He did not feel the fly control program was adequate. Dick Buchholtz said they have an adequate fly and odor control program. David Buchholtz said the current plan is larger. He said after submitting the original basic plan he found that the size was not adequate for a horse stall so they changed the width and length but not the height and added win- dows. He said the proposed height was 10.5 feet to the ridgeline. Mr. McTaggart asked if any problems have occurred with permits in the past. Mr. Weber said there have been no problems and no complaints to his know- ledge. He said no permits have been revoked. RECESS At 10:15 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:25 p.m. with the same members present. Dr. Baer asked if the applicant had considered putting the stable off the ridge to make it less visible. 11/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Dick Buchholtz said the slope on the rest of the area was very steep. He said the proposed location was an existing level area. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart said based on past experience and the fact that he felt staff had addressed the issues competently, he felt the permit could be condi- tioned to be acceptable. He said the lot lends itself to the keeping of horses better than any other proposals that have come before the Commission. Dr. Brown commented on how large the subject lot was compared to the others in the area. Mr. Hinchliffe said the location of the proposed structures was in a unique position. He said he noted the sound that carried through the canyon while he was inspecting the site. He said he could not make the first of the three findings, as he felt that it would be detrimental. Dr. Brown felt staff had performed the requirements of the Development Code. He felt he could make the findings but felt the permit should be conditioned more thoroughly than recommended by staff. He felt there should be a condi- tion re the horses being taken out throughthecanyon, no use of trailers except for emergency. Mr. McTaggart felt there should be a condition for the upkeep of the prop- erty, of those improvements associated with the keeping of horses. Re con- dition #2 he said it did not specify what the Director of Planning would review. Dr. Brown felt they should explore methods to mitigate impacts of the building, possibly alternative designs. Mr. McTaggart suggested a condition requiring sprinkling of the area used for exercising the horses to keep the dust down. Dr. Baer felt landscaping should be a condition, that a landscape plan should be required. He also suggested a species requirement -so as not to cause view obstruction with the vegetation. Dr. Brown advised the audience that the item would be back to the Commission at its next meeting and that there would be no further notice. The item was continued. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT 87 APPEAL Ms. Bergquist said the request was for 6554 Madeline Cove an eight -bay television antenna to be Appellent/Landowner: T. Watabe left up at the height of 40 feet above the roof line. She said the applicant was appealing staff's denial because he believed that the request was an appropriate minor exception and that the need for such an antenna was unique, i.e. to receive an all -Japanese language station. She said the overall height was 62 feet, and that Cable TV did not carry Channel 18 nor did it plan to in the future. She said one complaint voiced against the antenna concerned noise caused by the lead wire slapping against the support pole but that the problem could be mitigated by securing it more closely to the pole. She said the area in which the house is located can be characterized by a lack of above -ground utilities and antennas, and if allowed this antenna would break up the skyline of the area. She said the antenna falls in direct line with the view of Catalina Island from two of the neighboring properties. Staff recommended denial on the basis of significant view interruption, cumulative view impact, and potential loss of property values in the neighborhood. Public hearing was opened. 11/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Edward Tabash, attorney for the landowner, 250 East First Street, Suite 812, Los Angeles, said the antenna was visible but was only six inches across and would not obstruct views. He said they were asking for an additional 22 feet to what the Code allowed. He said the Commission must weigh the delicate balance between an aesthetic modification and a language need. He said the landowners have made attempts to get Channel 18 through Cable TV. He did not feel that the additional 22 feet requested would reduce the value of the surrounding properties. He said if -the channel could be brought into the home by some other means, they would agree to a condition requiring removal of the antenna. He said they would accept any conditions that were possible. Mr. McTaggart said crankdown towers were available but that the tower it- self was more intrusive than the antenna. He felt there were too many guy wires. Mrs. Hall, 6603 Madeline Cove Drive, said the landowners contacted the cable company. She said the people on her side of the street view telephone poles and wires all the way down to the ocean. She was in support of the request. Jeff Cameron, 6540 Madeline Cove Drive, referred to his letter in which he discussed the issues. He said the neighbors have been looking at this antenna for four months and it has not yet received a'permit. He said he thought it was a two-inch pole, but that the structure spans the entire roof because it is tied down to all four corners. He said it was an eye sore and he was concerned with both the height and width of the structure. He said lowering the height would not make it acceptable to him. Bill Phillips, 6536 Abbottswood, said an additional 22 feet was like a two- story building. He said it could open the floodgates for a lot of requests, that perhaps he would want an antenna to get a station in Alabama. He said the structure affected his view and the value of his home. He said if it was lower the array would obstruct his view of Catalina instead of the pole. Klaus Biber, 6544 Abbottswood, said the pole was sticking up right in the middle of his beautiful view. He felt if it was lower it might be below the horizon. Mrs. Finefrock, 6553 Madeline Cove, directly across the street, said she can see the antenna from every room in the house. She said she would not have bought her house if the antenna had been there at the time, as if affects the value of her home. She said they bought into the area because of the underground utilities. Ralph Clercq, 6616 Madeline Cove, said the structure dominated the skyline and is his view from all windows on the east side of his house. He said it spanned the entire house and was the predominate feature from his back yard. He felt the structure represented an obvious depreciation in value to the surrounding properties. Mr. Tabash said the concerns expressed were valid but he felt the extent of the intrusion was not that much. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown asked if there were other ways of securing the antenna to reduce the guy wires. Mr. Hinchliffe said his concern was that this has developed into a view ob- struction issue and the Commission did not have all they needed to look at in order to determine how much view obstruction there was. Dr. Brown was not sure there was significant view obstruction and was con- cerned about the rights of free speech. He said it was not clear whether there were alternative solutions and felt there should be more information. 11/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mr. McTaggart felt there were probably alternatives which would allow crank - down capabilities and elimination of some of the guy wires. He felt the guy wires were the most objectionable part. He suggested that they ask the Amateur Radio Club to research it. He felt the Cable TV company was un- responsive. He felt it was unfortunate that Mr. Hughes was not present and felt there was not enough information available tonight to make a decision. He wondered if a little pressure on the cable company would solve the prob- lem. Dr. Brown agreed that Mr. Hughes was the expert and felt Mr. McTaggart's suggestion was a good one. He said they needed to investigate other alter- natives with the tower design which would include the guy wires and also whether they could get Cable TV to show Channel 18. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to continue the matter and have the Amateur Radio Club look at alternatives. Mr. McTaggart agreed to be a subcommittee with Mr. Hughes to work with staff and resolve the issue. The above motion was unanimously carried. Dr. Brown advised the audience to keep in touch with staff concerning when this item will be back before the Commission. VARIANCE NO. 45 Ms. Bergquist said the request was for 30865 Casilina Drive a five-foot wall along the front prop- Landowner/Applicant: Mr. and erty line extending back along the Mrs. Gordon Whitney east property line and along the drive- way in order to enclose a pool and jacuzzi located in the front yard. She reviewed the four required findings and staff's response to each of them as listed in the staff report. She said in staff's opinion the appli- cant's request for fee waiver due to administrative error was not justified, as the plan submitted with Site Plan Review No. 1104 (which approved the pool) inaccurately depicted the jacuzzi as being set back 30 feet from the front property line and staff noted on the plans the requirement for fencing to be a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line. Based on the find- ings staff recommended approval of the variance subject to the condition that the wall in the front setback on the west side of the property must be cut to 42 inches maximum and that no part of any wall is to be over six feet in height. The public hearing was opened. Gordon Whitney said the incorrect drawing should never have been approved. He submitted copies of petitions in support. He said the fence heights were finaled by the Building Department on September 29 as being correct. He showed photographs of the project and said the six-foot fence next to the garage is to cover the greenhouse in the back. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said the property line was drawn on the plan at 30 feet. He said staff can only make the findings for the wall that encloses the pool, not the wall on the west side of the garage. Mrs. Whitney said the shed (greenhouse) was there when they bought the house in 1964 and that there was a wall in front of it at that time which they removed. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe said the only way to justify that wall is for aesthetic reasons which the Commission cannot consider. 11/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- • • Mr. McTaggart did not feel there had been an administrative error. He said he was uncomfortable requiring that the walls be cut. Mr. Hinchliffe noted that the height of the wall depended on where the measurement was taken from, that it measured 42 inches from the highest elevation of the driveway. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, that the wall in the front on the west side of the property appears to be 42 inches in height. Mr. Weber suggested changing condition #1 to say "that the wall in the front setback on the west side of the property shall not exceed 42 inches in height, as determined by the Planning Commission." The Commission concurred with that change to condition #1 and the above motion was withdrawn. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 80-24, thereby granting Variance No. 45 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", as amended above, and based on the findings as stated in the staff report. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Hughes CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of October 28, 1980 with the following amendments: page 5, paragraph 3, line 2, change to read "...lots, 1 thru 6, 14, 15, and 27."; and page 8, 9th complete paragraph, line 1, should read "...that the roof line is..." ' STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said they could not hold the staff/Commission dinner on November 20 and suggested that it be held on Wed- nesday, December 3, instead. Dr. Brown said he would discuss it with the Commissioners and get back in touch with staff re the date. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown reported on the meeting with the Mayor and Chairpersons and said there was a suit in progress by the Barton Hills Homeowners Association for low- and moderate -income housing; that the census figures would be released on April 1; that the Rolling Hills slide was not connected to our City; and that the Portuguese Bend Assessment District was moving along but that there were problems with Seaview re the hold harmless agreements. He discussed Hesse Park and said the City was planning to lease Abalone Cove Beach. He said the next meeting will be on the 29th of November. Mr. Hinchliffe said that Mr. Hughes and he met last Saturday with Mr. Thomp- son, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Bruning re the Silver Spur Road office building. He said they have revised their plans. 11/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Dr. Brown said he heard from Cayman concerning their project. Mr. Hinchliffe and Dr. Baer said they were also invited to a meeting with Cayman. Dr. Baer said he did attend that meeting. Dr. Brown noted that when meeting with applicants, all that any of the Com- missioners could do is discuss process and procedure. ADJOURNMENT At 1:28 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, November 25, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 11/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a4m