Loading...
PC MINS 198204130 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting April 13, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: Brown ABSENT: Baer Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Alice Bergquist Angus, and Assistant Planner Jonathon Shepherd. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approv- ing A) the minutes of the meeting of March 23, 1982, as presented, and B) a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 59 (Tract 37818). Dr. Brown arrived at 7:32 p.m. SIGN PERMIT NO. 141 Mr. Shepherd said this item had been 6118 Palos Verdes Drive South continued at the last meeting to enable Landowner: Brown staff and the applicant to develop a Applicant: Forster compromise sign proposal that comes closer to the Code requirements. He said two proposals have been developed but not a compromise proposal. In proposal #1 staff proposed a monument sign be placed in the northeast corner of the subject property with a sign face 5 feet high and 7 feet long. Staff proposed that the sign be placed as an extension of the existing planter located in the front of the property and that the total height of the sign be a maximum of 7 feet above grade. In proposal #2 the applicant proposed a monument sign 9 feet high and lumin- ated. He said the applicant proposed shifting the 5 x 7 foot sign face so that the sign face would be 7 feet high and 5 feet long. The sign was pro- posed to be placed as an extension of the existing planter, giving the sign a total height of 9 feet. He said the applicant was concerned about the limited parking area and did not wish to lose the parking space in front of the sign. Staff -recommended approval of proposal #1, allowing a permanent free-standing monument sign of 7 feet in height to be placed in the north- east corner of the property. W. J. Brown, 2860 Via De La Guerra, Palos Verdes Estates, said their pro- posal was to up -end the sign and turn it the other way as a compromise, instead of using a pedestal. He presented photographs to the Commission showing the effect of the parking on each of the sign proposals. He said there were only 7 parking spaces available and that the loss of one parking space would affect them significantly. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Brown said the function of the sign is to list three businesses. He said he agreed with staff in that he also preferred the appearance of a horizontal sign. He said, however, that roughly one-third of the sign would be blocked with a car parked there. Carmen Forster, 203 Seascape Road, said illumination of the sign during day- light hours was necessary because of the fog conditions in the area. She felt the sign was more aesthetically pleasing in a vertical position with the address at the top. 0 On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by the Commission approved sign proposal #1, granting a free-standing monument sign 7 Permit No. 141. 11 Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, as recommended by staff, thereby feet in height, as part of Sign Mr. Hughes said there has been a long history since the City's incorporation of trying to bring the signing of the City under control and, in an effort to be consistent, the Commission found that in this case the sign ordinance was applicable. He advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14425 Ms. Angus said ordinance No. 143U Portuguese Bend Club (portion of) allows for the processing and approval Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties of parcel maps for properties within - Applicant: Sikand Engineering the Moratorium Area that contain resi- dential structures that are already completed and occupied subject to com- pliance with the Moratorium Ordinance. She said this request was to subdi- vide a 115.7+ acre site into three parcels and she discussed the proposed parcels. She said this application does not propose any further improvements (building or grading) on the site. Staff recommended approval of the tenta- tive parcel map subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. She noted that although a letter was received from the County Engineer's office stating that they would not approve the map because of geologic problems, the City Attorney's office indicated that the letter did not constitute a problem since no development was proposed and conditions prohibit it. John McCarthy, 105 Spindrift Drive, representing the Portuguese Bend lease- holders, said they had tried for a long time to subdivide the property. Monte Brower, representing Palos Verdes Properties, questioned the park fee which was one of the conditions of approval. Director Hightower explained that the park fee was based on one possible lot to be developed and that if further development in the future is possi- ble it would be recalculated for the appropriate number of lots. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, said the new Map Act allows for final map approval within two years but the conditions state one year. Director Hightower said although the Map Act allows that provision, the City only allows for one year approvals but that extensions were available. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 82-7, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 14425, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, -ff±nch±i:ff-L—_, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Baer )96ST191A): ginchl/lVe- Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING Mr. Shepherd reviewed the background of 53 Avenida Corona this project, saying plans were approved Landowner/Applicant: Izmirian on June 16, 1980 for a room addition and that said plans showed a distance of 130 feet from the addition to the eastern property line. Subsequent to that approval, the City received documents from the neighbor including a survey which showed the actual eastern property line 4/13/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- to be 12 to 14 feet from the addition. He said a stop work order was issued and the landowner was directed to apply for a variance. He said although at that time the structure was completed, the permit was not finalized. He said the applicant is challenging staff's determination that -the eastern property line is his front property line. He said the subject property is a flag lot and access is taken from Avenida Corona. He read the applicable Code section' -and said staff has determined that the eastern property line most nearly parallels Avenida Corona. Staff recommended that the eastern property line be determined as the front property line and that the applicant be directed to file for a variance. Thomas Izmirian, 53 Avenida Corona, said his lot fit not only the definition of a flag lot but also that of an interior lot and a hillside lot. He re- viewed the drawing on display and noted that the addition was 2.6 feet by 21 feet long. He said La Vista Verde runs all along what he considers to be the front of his property and that people can walk from that street onto his property even though his driveway goes down to Avenida Corona. He said for 16 years he was taking care of half of the hill thinking that it was his property and that his septic tank is located in that area. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about the septic tank location and Mr. Hughes said that the record should reflect that it has been indicated that the sep- tic tank for the subject lot is located on the adjacent lot. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Shepherd said the required rear yard setback is 15 feet and that although it would not meet that requirement, it could be handled with a minor exception permit since it is only about one foot short of that requirement. Mr. McTaggart said normally with a flag lot the City considers the adjacent street from which access is gained as the front of the property. He said there was no question about whether this is a flag lot, but that it was unusual in that it is a flag lot with potential access from another street. In view of the fact that the Code is a little ambiguous and does not state that the City must determine the means of access as the adjacent road in determining front property lines, he felt it could be argued that the site most nearly parallels the street where there is no access. He said the rear yard setback could then be handled with a minor exception permit and would not need a variance. The other Commissioners concurred. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to establish that the front property line of the subject residence parallels La Vista Verde as opposed to Avenida Corona. The Commission directed that the rear yard setback be dealt with through a minor exception permit process. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Baer Mr. Hughes advised the applicant about the minor exception permit process in order to clear up the stop work order and further advised of the fifteen day appeal period. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the septic tank situation and felt that the City had an obligation for the health and safety of the residents and the applicant and should recommend to the applicant that he pursue either acquisition of the property or moving the septic tank onto his property. Mr. Hughes advised the applicant of the fact that he had a potential prob- lem with the location of his septic tank on the adjacent property which he may want to look at through title research or other documents related to the property and perhaps consult an attorney. 4/13/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 0, 0 FIRE RESISTANT ROOF STUDY Mr. Shepherd said at its meeting of March 2 the City Council amended and adopted alternative #2 and sent the issue back to staff and the Commission for further study. He said the items for discussion this evening were the types of roofing materials available, deterioration of treated roofs, and fire statistics on the Peninsula. He said various samples of roofing materials were available this evening and that Assistant Fire Chief Raymond Brunstrom would present a slide show on roof fires. Mr. McTaggart knew of someone who invested in pressure -treated shakes and that the Fire Department has tried unsuccessfully six times to ignite sam- ples of the material. Assistant Fire Chief Raymond Brunstrom presented a slide show and distributed written materials to the Commission. In response to Commission questions, he said the underwriters have taken various treatments and weather -tested them for up to ten years. He said the testing indicates that most of the chemical treatments would last for the life of the shingle. He said class C is for light exposure, class B is for moderate exposure, and class A is more what they would refer to as fire resistant roofing. He said the severity is less in this area than in Duarte, for example, where wind conditions are double what they are here. He said there were products available to treat existing roofs but that none of those products have passed the class C level. He said the shingles are the same with classes B and C, that it is only the roofing assembly that changes the rating. He said there were areas within the City that are different in terms of need, that the probability of fire in the canyon areas is greater. He said 10 to 20 percent of residential fires with structural damage is due to roofing. He said this City is probably lower than most cities because fireworks are prohibited. He felt imposing laws to protect people from fire was just as appropriate as install- ing traffic signals at busy intersections. He said the cedar industry ag- gressively lobbies governmental agencies, but that there were several materials available that give the same appearance as cedar shingles. He said solid sheeting underneath improves fire protection. He said the big- gest problem is with direct fire, and that roofing can receive burning embers coming from fires quite a distance away. With a garage fire, he said it takes about 10 minutes for the fire to go through the roof and then move on to the rest of the house. He recommended class B roofing throughout the City with perhaps class C for reroofing. With regard to fire zones for re- roofing, he said he personally did not discriminate because although there is more likelihood of a fire in the canyon area, once the - fire -is going, wood sh, ngle 'rd6f s anywhere are -su8cep­t_ 1-bl—e-to ignition. He saidthere are approximately five structural fires per month in this City, and probably one with major structural damage. He said insurance companies make no differen- tial in this area regardless of the type of roofing. Re inspecting roofs, he said the only way to tell whether it is a treated or untreated shingle is to take it in for a chemical test, that it could not be determined by looking at it. Mr. Shepherd referred to the various samples of roofing on display and the Commission inspected them. In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower said staff did not have a recommendation at this time. Re fire zones, she said it might not be too difficult to delineate the areas, that the biggest difficulties would arise later in administering the Code. Mr. Hinchliffe felt a standard rather than variable roofing requirement would be more effective in informing the roofing industry of the City's Codes. Mr. McTaggart noted that although all roofing contractors know a permit is required, reroofing is often done without a permit. Mr. Hughes wondered if the City could justify the initial cost, in terms of economics, for even a class C rating. 4/13/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- It was the consensus of the Commission that staff should look at class B rating for roofing of all new construction, class C rating for reroofing throughout the City with class B rating for reroofing in designated fire hazard areas. Staff was to determine if those hazard areas could be desig- nated and if a program like that could be administered. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower said staff's report on antennae went to the City Council and the recommendations were approved for study, with emphasis on safety and design. She said one of the problems is that there is nothing in the City's current ordinance that deals with the dishes (earth stations). Mr. Hughes noted an error on page 2 of.the report in that it should read "non -ionized" instead of "ionized" radiation. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes noted that he would probably not be able to attend the next meeting. Mr. McTaggart was designated as Acting Chairman for that meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 10:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, April 27, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. 4/13/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-