Loading...
PC MINS 19810224M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting February 24, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: Baer Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planners Sandra Massa Lavitt and Alice Bergquist Angus, and Acting Secretary Marilyn Smith. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Donald Bebel, 8 Barkentine Road, asked to speak on an item not on the Agenda, regarding the construction of a new house at 6 Barkentine Road which will block his view. Dr. Brown asked Mr. Bebel if he had checked with the Planning staff relative to this construction. Mr. Bebel replied that he had not. Following a brief description of the application process and Code require- ments, Dr. Brown suggested that Mr. Bebel consult with the Planning staff, who would be able to answer his questions. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby ap- proving the minutes of the Joint Workshop Meeting of February 4, 1981, and the minutes of the Work Session of February 17, 1981. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37205 Mr. Weber reviewed -the staff report. SE of Armaga Spring & Indian Valley He stated that a revised plan had been Landowner: Richard Dyer submitted on February 4 and that it was Applicant: Lanco Engineering essentially the same as a concept pre- viously reviewed. The primary change is in the grading which changed the overall concept. While the revised plan still calls for building pads, it has a much more natural character. He said that the revised plan is more in keeping with the intent of the Code; however, there were still some minor areas where changes should be made. These areas include: a proposed 6 -foot high block wall within a front and street -side setback, the size of Lot 15, the configuration of Lot 17, a note referring to "one story house", and the street width. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37205 subject to the conditions found in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution and subject to the changes recommended previously. Mr. McTaggart was concerned with the number of curb cuts onto Armaga Spring Road. Mr. Weber said he did not feel it was a significant problem but a condition could be required which would prohibit vehicular access to Armaga Spring from Lots 9 and 32. Dr. Brown declared the public hearing opened and asked if there was anyone to speak on the matter. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, addressed the Commission. He explained the revisions he had made to the map. He also explained the grading con- cept and said he had no objections to the changes proposed by staff. I The public hearing was closed. Regarding the width of the proposed street, the Commission felt that the road should be 34 feet due to the low number of houses. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council that Tentative Tract Map No. 37205 be approved subject to the changes recommended by staff and pursuant to the conditions attached to the resolution, including the addition of condition no. 31 regarding vehicular access rights to Armaga Spring Road. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37060 Ms. Lavitt reviewed the staff report, Avenida Classica/Avenida Esplendida explaining that the primary concern Landowner: G. F. Goeden of the Commission was with the main - Applicant: Lanco Engineering tenance of the public view and that the developer had been directed to - explore the concept of a residential planned development (RPD). She said two concepts were submitted. Study #4 incorporates the RPD, while Study #5 calls for a 29 -lot subdivision with the minimum lot size at 13,000 squre feet. Staff felt that Study #4 more closely met the Commission's recommendations of February 14 and recom- mended that the Commission direct the applicant to refine Study #4 with the following considerations: 1) Some additional thought should be given to the area which runs the entire length of Hawthorne Boulevard frontage encompassing the area adjacent to the Hughes Market re- taining wall. 2) The roadway serving the 17 lots including the two flag lots should be redesigned. Staff would like to see the flag lots eliminated along with the termination of the cul-de-sac at the common open space. 3) There appears to be conflicts occurring at grade changes between the common open space and the lots adjacent to the open area. These conflicts must be resolved prior to adoption of the final grading plan. 4) If the flag lots cannot be eliminated, staff would like to have the entrances into the flag lots redesigned to get away from the "tunnel" effect they would have, assum- ing that property owners on either side of the flag driveways will construct 6 -foot fencing. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, then addressed the Commission. He stated that he had had numerous discussions with staff. He indicated that 10,000 square feet was the smallest lot his client could tolerate. He then pre- sented the Commission with a new drawing. He disagreed with staff with regard to the flag lots and the cul-de-sac concept and explained to the Commission why he was in disagreement. He indicated that he had changed the grading to retain the view from Hawthorne and to make lots appear more natural. Mr. Hughes indicated that Mr. Leonard had generally attained the goals set forth in the previous meeting. He was pleased that a buffer had been added and that homes were not located right against the retaining wall of Hughes Market. He stated that the way to have greater lot size was to reduce the number of lots, but also stated that he could live with flag lots. 2/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Although staff had recommended the RPD concept, the Commission indicated they would not be adverse to staff looking at the new proposal and to make comment. Mr. McTaggart was uncomfortable with the width of the pole of the flag lots and suggested that they be widened for adequate access of fire trucks, delivery trucks and turn -around. The Commission then recommended that the public hearing be continued and directed the applicant to refine Study #4. VARIANCE NO. 62 Ms. Angus informed the Commission that 2 La Vista Verde the applicants requested that the Landowner/Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Commission grant a variance so they Arnold Nordhagen could keep the 5 -foot chainlink fence they had constructed along their front property line.- They also requested a fee waiver in that they felt an administrative error had been made. After going over the following conditions which exist in reference to this proper- ty (Chapter 7, Part 3) staff recommended that the variance be granted. Staff found that the 5 -foot chainlink fence did provide necessary protection for the property owners; that it had no adverse effects on the public welfare or the surrounding area; that the fence did not adversely affect anyone's safety; that 25 letters from members of La Vista Verde Estates Homeowners Association had been received in favor of the fence, and that all conditions did exist in reference to this property (Chapter 7, Part 3). Staff did not feel, however, that an administrative error had been made and recommended that the fee not be waived. It was then moved that the public hearing be opened. Mr. Nordhagen addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of his property and the history of the area. Mr. McTaggart asked if a 42 -inch high fence would have been adequate to protect the property. Mr. Nordhagen replied that it would not have been high enough.. Paul Mathews, president of the La Vista Verde Estates Homeowners Association, stated that even with a 5 -foot high fence, debris was still thrown over the fence and it was necessary for the Nordhagens and other neighbors to clean up the debris once a week. The greater height of the fence, however, was a deterrent. Mr. Hughes suggested to Mr. Mathews that the La Vista Verde Estates home- owners become more aware of what is required by the City Planning office before starting construction and not take the word of contractors or archi- tects who may not be aware of City Code. The public hearing was then closed. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution P.C. No. 81-33, thereby approving Variance No. 62. The Commission further resolved unanimously that the request for fee waiver be denied. Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. STAFF REPORTS Staff requested that the Commission review and comment of the Recreational Vehicle Parking draft memo. 2/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- It was the consensus of the Commission to send the memo to the City Council and that a copy of the Code sections pertaining to this topic be attached to the memo. ADJOURNMENT 2/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 9:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 10, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. -4-