Loading...
PC MINS 198105122 C'o M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting May 12, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planners Richard Thompson and Ann Negendank, and Assistant Planners Sandra M. Lavin tt and Alice Bergquist Angus. _ COMMUNICATIONS On motion ofMr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission established 11:00 p.m. as a time certain for adjournment; any items that have to be carried over would be considered at the next regular Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimously carried, thereby approv— ing: A) the minutes of the meeting of April 20, 1981; B) the minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1981; and C) a six-month time extension for Tenta- tive Parcel Map No. 8947. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37818 Mr. Thompson said the proposal called CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 59 for 10 homes on the upper portion of North & east of Hawthorne Blvd., the property and 13 homes on the lower between Via Rivera & Via La Cresta portion. He said at the last meeting Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties the Commission requested additional Applicant: Sikand Engineering information which the applicant has submitted. He referred to the section- als of the proposed project which were on display. He said another view survey was conducted which indicated no view obstruction and that staff had photographs showing that. He said the grading information indicated adverse impacts could be avoided. He said staff was satisfied with the information presented by the applicant and recommended approval. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Thompson said there would be ap- proximately 43,000 cubic yards of export. He said "A" street on the lower subdivision was shown with a slope of 15 percent for approximately 280 feet. Mr. McTaggart said a 15 -percent slope for the road at that length seemed to him to be poor design. He felt it would be unsafe. Mr. Thompson said one of the reasons for the high elevation was to increase the visibility with the traffic coming down Via Rivera. In addition, he said they were trying to keep the limits of grading from falling further out into the Open Space Hazard area or creating steeper slopes. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, said they verified the ridgeline on unit #1 as shown on the overlay sketch, assuming 498. He said they have provided 11 or 12 sketches showing the way the particular units are sited on the property. Re the proposed slope of the road, he said it was present- ly set at 15 percent which was the same as Via Rivera. He said they were willing to reduce it to 13 percent, but did not feel they could go lower than that. He said all of the driveway slopes were 10 percent or less. He said they have provided three alternate grading removal plans, and he distributed copies to the Commission and staff. He said the present esti- mate of export was 44,000 cubic yards which would require 2200 to 2600 loads, depending on the type of vehicle used. He said the timing was predicated upon the amount of truck traffic permitted by the Director of Planning. He felt the current volume of export could possibly be reduced. He said they would like to be able to salvage rock for building purposes for the units. He said during the grading he was certain that the City would require dust control treatment. He said their preference was for alternate C because it would be more efficient in terms of time and would be easier as far as directing the truck traffic off the lower site. He said alternate A would probably be the least efficient as far as time is concerned. He said the estimates used assumed a downhill haul outside of the City. In response to questions by Dr. Baer, Mr. Bower said he assumed a maximum haul road width of 20 feet. He said it would depend somewhat on the size of the equipment and that they would need a flagman. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, said they did a preliminary hydrology study to address the gross drainage on the site. He showed the exhibit to the Commission and reviewed the proposed drainage plan, saying it was designed at a capacity of a 25 -year storm, per the City's criteria. Mr. McTaggart asked if the reason for putting the haul road and storm drain in the same area is to limit disruption. In response to questions by Dr. Baer, Mr. Marks said the proposed configura- tion of the upper site impacted less of the property. Re the slopes behind the units, he said a 2:1 slope is the maximum that the City will allow. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes questioned staff about condition no. 32 of the tentative tract map resolution and wondered if there were sufficient controls and checks to make sure that the project is actually graded to the elevation approved. He noted problems with a previous subdivision. Mr. Thompson said staff relies on the County to see that the grading plan is processed as approved. Director Hightower said the reason for the condition is because of the problems in the past, that it was a method of checking at the rough grading stage. Mr. McTaggart asked the purpose of condition no. 34 of the tract resolution. Director Hightower said the post office requires clustering and will not deliver to individual boxes in new subdivisions. She said the postal ser- vice requested that the City include this provision in its approval of new subdivisions. Mr. McTaggart asked if this provision was a law or just a new policy of the post office. He was opposed to the condition and suggested that the Commission strike it from the resolution. He suggested that the matter be addressed by the subcommittee of the Commission at a meeting and requested that staff provide all available related information to the subcommittee for its review. The other Commissioners concurred with Mr. McTaggart. It was further the consensus of the Commission that the question of the 498 ridgeline for lot #1 has been satisfied. The Commission was also satisfied with the hydrology study. 5/12/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, that staff not accept A as an alternative, that the Commission was satisfied with either B or C or a combination thereof. Mr. Hughes asked staff's reaction to the three proposals. Director Hightower said she supported A because of what the other proposals would do to the hillside, that A was the least impactive. Mr. McTaggart said he was more concerned about four months of truck traffic and its effects on the residents. Dr. Baer felt it should be left to staff to choose the alternative. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: Baer, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 81-43 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 59. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37818 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A" as modified this evening with the deletion of condition no. 34. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown noted that the Commission's action was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days. At 8:39 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:46 p.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for - 4140 Lorraine Road the installation of tennis court Applicant/Landowner: R. Hansen lighting with eight stanchions at a height of 18 feet. She said the arm projection was proposed at six feet with 1000 watt bulbs. She described the site and said at the rear was a 30 -foot Miraleste Parks & Recreation easement which acts as a natural buffer between the Miraleste area and the higher density residential area to the east. In dealing with tennis court lighting, she said the primary concern is with the impact of the lights' reflected glare on the view from the adjacent properties and about direct illumination of properties other than that upon which the light source is physically located. She said the light stanchions would be directly visible from one adjacent residence to the west but due to the grade difference the view would be over the stan- chions rather than through the light reflection itself. She said the major problem would be the reflected glare on the court surface itself and its 5/12/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- impact on the nighttime view. She said the light stanchions and fixtures that are proposed are the same type that were installed on the Atkinson residence and, as such, it was staff's opinion that there would be no view obstruction to the westerly property caused by the lighting as proposed. She said since the Enrose residences are at a grade difference varying from 20 to 50 feet below the court surface, the impact may be from direct down illumination caused by the exposed light bulbs. She said with light shields the impact may be non-existent, particularly with the 30 -foot easement. She said, however, that the applicant could be required to install screening on the fencing which would help block the reflected glare and help to muffle the noise. She said even with the mitigation measures the lights would have an effect on the overall nighttime visual character but since the court would provide recreational use for the family, it is assumed that it would not be in constant evening use and, therefore, its impact would be limited. Staff recommended that the Commission discuss the issues and provide direc- tion and, if appropriate, staff would prepare a resolution and conditions for the next meeting. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said in the Atkinson case, at 10 to 15 feet away, the illumination was less than one footcandle. She showed the photographs which were on display and presented aerial photos which were submitted by the applicant this evening. She said there was a 9:00 p.m. restriction on the use of the Atkinson lights. Bob Hansen, 4140 Lorraine Road, said he and his neighbor, Mr. Broderick, observed the Atkinson lights last week. He said Mr. Broderick was unable to attend tonight's meeting but was now satisfied with the project. He said he would have Mr. Broderick send a letter to staff indicating he no longer had concerns. He said the other neighbors had no objections. He said he had no objection to the type of surface treatment used by the Atkin - sons to eliminate reflection. He said he did not object to a 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. time limit. Kenneth W. Gale, 4136 Lorraine Road, said he was the neighbor to the imme- diate north and was in favor of the proposed lighting. He said the easement was actually 50 feet. Dr. Brown asked if the applicant had any objection to windscreens. Mr. Hansen said the Atkinsons did not have windscreens and he did not feel they were necessary, but that he would agree to them if required by the Commission. Mr. McTaggart noted that in the Atkinson case the neighbors testified that there were no objections to either the lighting or the noise. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the Commission directed staff to prepare the necessary resolution for the next meeting and that the conditions include the following: non-commercial use of the court; hours restricting use of the lights (to be the same as the Atkinsons); light shields; at a minimum the surface to have the same treat- ment or be less impactive than that of the Atkinsons; and that after one year of operation the hours and other conditions be reviewed by the Commis- sion. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 536 6853 Alta Vista Drive Lot 18, Tract No. 32673 Applicant: L. Gintz ceeding three and one-half feet. She Ms. Angus said the proposed project was a tennis court to be located at the rear of the lot. She said the court would be retained on all sides with two downslope retaining walls and two sideyard retaining walls, all ex - said the maximum height would be eight 5/12/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- feet. She said if the grading is permitted the applicant was also proposing fencing atop the retaining walls to enclose the tennis court and that the combination fence/wall would reach a maximum height of 14 feet in the rear setback and would, therefore, require a variance. Staff recommended denial based on the excessive number and height of retaining walls. She said an alternative would be for the court to be sunk deeper if the Commission would approve a higher northerly wall, thus not causing the high appearance southerly and not creating a problem with the fence height. Lenore Gintz, 6769 Alta Vista Drive, said they have informally discussed various alternatives with staff. She said their intent with regard to the fence is to keep the children safe. Thomas Milostan, 715 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, said they de- signed for balanced cut and fill. He said the possibility of dropping the court and having no retaining wall on the ocean (south) side would still require an eight -foot retaining wall on the other side. He said he was willing to go along with staff's suggestion. Dr. Baer asked if they had considered terracing with two four -foot walls instead of one eight -foot wall. He said another possibility would be to grade it back and make a 3:1 slope. Mr. Milostan said that might be very expensive. He felt it would be aes- thetically more pleasing to work it at zero on the south side and then terrace it back. In response to questions by Mr. Hughes, Director Hightower said the fencing requires a variance rather than a minor exception permit because it is pro- posed to be located in the setback. She suggested that the applicant submit some alternatives showing the large retaining wall as one and the created slopes as another, if it is agreeable to the Commission. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the effects and said he was not sure he could make the findings for this project. He said he also was not sure that a six-foot fence on a tennis court would be practical. Director Hightower said this was not a variance, that the Grading Code con- tained guidelines only. She said this request was not the same as any other case the City has had before. She said one consideration of this lot is that it is adjacent to the golf course. Mr. Hinchliffe felt they should look at reducing the downslope retaining walls and perhaps zero on one side and retaining at the other end. He said perhaps the applicant could come up with two or three alternatives. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to request the applicant to work with staff and come up with two or three alternatives to bring back to the Commission at a future meeting. Mr. Hughes said he considered the lot to be marginal for a tennis court. He said perhaps the applicant should consider a sports court rather than a full size tennis court. Mr. McTaggart agreed with Mr. Hughes. He said it looked like the court was being shoehorned onto this lot. The above motion was unanimously carried. VARIANCE NO. 67 Ms. Angus said the request was for an 6345 Via Colinita existing fence/wall combination that Applicant: G. Cigliano, trustee exceeds 42 inches in height in the front and street -side setbacks. She said at the northernmost end of the extension the stone wall measures three feet with three feet of wrought 5/12/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- • iron atop. At the southernmost end, where the extension meets the previous- ly existing wall, the stone measures 4 feet 10 inches with three feet of wrought iron atop. She said adjacent to the driveway are pilasters which range in height from 7 feet to 7 feet 10 inches (excluding the lanterns mounted on top). She said a minor exception permit could be processed if the pilasters and fence/wall did not exceed six feet and the wall portion did not exceed 42 inches. She reviewed the required findings and staff's responses as listed in the staff report. Staff recommended denial based on the lack of evidence to justify the necessary findings for approval. Staff further recommended that the applicant be directed to lower the fence/wall combination and driveway gates to a maximum height of 42 inches. Gerald A. Cigliano, 6345 Via Colinita, said the extraordinary circumstances were that the wall exists at a considerable cost; it would be an excessive cost to make the modifications; and it was a continuation of a wall that met all of the standards in 1971. He said the wall was professionally done by a contractor who has worked on the Peninsula for 20 years. He said it was constructed with an eye for being aesthetically pleasing and consistent with what the Art Jury had approved in the past. Re safety and welfare, he said a number of his neighbors signed a petition in favor of the fence. He said there have not been any accidents in the area, that there is a clear line of sight and the fence did not obstruct anyone's view. He submitted a petition in support of the project and a proposal from the contractor as to the cost of rectifying the fence. He said he was one of the residents of the property, that he did not know if the contractor obtained approval from the Art Jury for this wall, and that he was sure permits were obtained for the previous construction since it included construction of the pool (in 1971) . Mr. Hughes said the Commission had to consider this project as though it had not yet been constructed. Keeping that in mind, he asked the applicant how he would make the required findings. Mr. Cigliano said re aesthetically pleasing, the wall continues the look of the previous wall. He said it does not present a public safety problem because people could see through the wrought iron. Re the General Plan he said it did not violate anyone's view and the neighbors were in favor of it. Re exceptional circumstances, he said this particular lot differs from most of the other lots in the tract because it was on a curve. He questioned how staff determined where the front of the property is. He said if they had to build to a 20 -foot setback today, the house could not be built. Dr. Baer asked if there was any reason other than aethetics for the wall to be so high. He wondered if there were safety reasons, etc. Mr. Cigliano said it was primarily for aesthetics but that an indirect effect of the wall would be that it provides protection in that it deters burglars and gives the dogs more room to run around. He said also there were a lot of children living in the home. Mr. McTaggart noted that the Commission could not consider aesthetics in approving a variance. Mr. Hinchliffe asked the applicant why he did not thoroughly check out the Codes and permit requirements, etc. Mr. Cigliano said they hired people to do the project which they felt did good work, were reliable, and did reputable work. He said he -relied on the contractor to take care of that. Jack Berry, 6305 Via Ciega, said the fence and wall have enhanced the neighborhood and increased property values. Paul Berglund, 6309 Via Ciega, said he lived directly across the street from the fence in question and was in support of the fence. He introduced six members of the audience who were in support of the project and referred 5/12/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- to two others who were in support but were unable to attend this meeting. He said he was the original contractor of the home and that the applicant was an outstanding client and was a fine neighbor. He introduced Anthony Cigliano. Ivan Halaj, 6341 Via Colinita, said there was no hazard, that he drove by there six times a day and the fence had never blocked his view. He said both he and his wife were in support of the fence. JoAnn Berglund, 6309 Via Ciega, said there was no problem with visibility. She said the pilasters in the front were the same height as those on the swimming pool side. She said the children played basketball in the yard and the fence prevents them from chasing the ball into the street. She said she drove a small car and could see sufficiently around and through the wrought iron fence. Wayne Ramage, 28111 Palos Verdes Drive East, said he built the wall. He said he called City Hall and was told that the fence must be 25 feet from the center of the road and that no permit was required. He said he has been a contractor for 27 years and was licensed with the City. Mr. McTaggart asked if an electrical permit was taken out. Mr. Ramage said he did not know, that he did not do the electrical work. Howard E. Miller, 4512 Palos Verdes Drive East, said Mr. Ramage was one of the finest masonry contractors in the area. He said he would also build a fence like the applicant if he could afford it, that he had been burglar- ized five times. He said the applicant's lot was unusual because it was circular and had no sides. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe asked how the County would have interpreted the lot in order to permit the pool wall to go to that height. Director Hightower said the County did allow six=-foot fences on street -side property lines. She said they normally interpreted the front to be where the address was, regardless of the configuration of the lot. Mr. Hinchliffe asked how the contractor could have been told to locate the fence 25 feet from the centerline of the street. Director Hightower said possibly by asking the City's right-of-way, as she thought the street was 50 feet wide. Dr. Baer felt there were exceptional conditions because of the curving -lot, the fact that there was no front or back. He said he would feel comfortable if it did not exceed six feet. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it was a dilemma with the fence in place and no one objecting; however, he felt it was clear that the provisions of the Code were not adhered to. Mr. McTaggart felt it was an unfortunate situation because the applicant was the victim. He said he could not make the findings to allow the vari- ance as presented. He did not feel a U-shaped lot justified a fence higher than what the Code permits, even though modifications might destroy the aesthetic beauty of the wall. Mr. Hughes could not make the findings. He said one option was to continue the item and allow the applicant to pursue other alternatives for the wall. Dr. Brown agreed the wall was aesthetically pleasing but the Code did not permit the Commission to take that into consideration. Re the cost of modifying the wall, he said it was a self-imposed hardship. He said the 5/12/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Fence Ordinance reflects the desires of the residents of the City. He asked the applicant how he felt about Dr. Baer's suggestion for reduction of the wall. Mr. Cigliano said he did not know if it would be feasible without talking to someone first. He said the gates would have to be adjusted. He agreed to work with staff on an acceptable alternative. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the Commission tabled the matter until June 9 pending a discussion between the applicant and staff to resolve the matter. Dr. Brown instructed the audience that there would be no further notifica- tion on this matter. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart suggested that when con- tractors violate the Code, a complaint automatically be forwarded by the City to the State Contractors' License Board. Director Hightower said she would want to discuss that with the City Attor- ney. Dr. Brown suggested that staff contact the City Attorney and report back to the Commission. STAFF REPORTS Ms. Negendank said she would postpone Housing Element Amendment her presentation to the Commission until Thrusday evening before the Housing Committee. Dr. Brown asked how many meetings there might be on the matter. Director Hightower said at least two in June and two in July. Ms. Negendank said the City would not receive the necessary data from the Census until 1982 and that was the reason for the questionnnaires. ADJOURNMENT At 10:59 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Thursday, May 14, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 5/12/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-