Loading...
PC MINS 19820511M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting May 11, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: Baer Also present were Director of Planning Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Plan- ner Ann Negendank, and Assistant Planners Joseph Gamble and Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR the minutes of the meeting of April By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving 27, 1982. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 26 REVISION Mr. Gamble reviewed the requested re - 30850 Hawthorne Boulevard vision to amend condition 12. He said Landowner: Salvation Army the proposed changes would allow the Applicant: Peninsula Racquet Club lighting of tennis courts 1 through 12 until 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and until 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. He said at the March 23 Commission meeting the matter was continued to allow staff to work out a proposal with the applicant for a trial period. He reported on the three alternatives. Alternative A would reduce thirty light hours on Monday, extend the lighting on the north courts to 10:00 p.m. and to 9:00 p.m. on the south courts on Friday, and extend both the north and south court hours to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Alternative B would reduce thirty light hours on Monday, extend the lighting on the north and south,courts to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and extend both the north and south court hours to 8:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Alternative C would reduce thirty light hours on Monday, ex- tend the lighting on the north and south courts to 10:00 p.m. on Friday, and extend the north court hours to 9:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Staff recommended adoption of Alternative A since it has the least amount of total light hours past 9:00 p.m. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Gamble said staff had not yet re- viewed the letter which was sent to the Commission by the applicant. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was re -opened. Russell Schweiger, 30828 Via La Cresta, informed the Commission that he had sent a letter to staff expressing the concerns of the homeowners in the vicinity of the lighted courts. He felt it would be unfair to make any kind of determination by using only six courts a night per week and that the home- owners would have a better chance of determining the effects if the test period is based on the full usage, as requested by the applicant. He said their main concerns were view degradation and noise, although the final judgement should be based on court utilization and view degradation. He recommended that the six-month trial period begin on July 1, 1982. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Schweiger said the utilization sub- ject had not been discussed with the court owners. He explained that if only one or two nights are judged it would not give the homeowners an accurate idea of what it would be like to live with the project. He expressed concern that once the lighting is approved it would set a precedence. 1 Van Vanesian, 30810 Via La Cresta, said the noise and lighting were severe nuisances. He said the noise is loud enough to awaken someone or prevent sleep, that it was like a party going on. He suggested that the courts to be lit for longer hours be covered in canvas to mitigate the effects of noise and light. Dr. Brown suggested changing the lighting so as not to be so harsh and asked if modifications of the lighting could be included during the six-month trial period. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Alternative A. Commission discussion ensued. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that a new proposal be submitted to include the changes requested, including the lighting to be changed as recommended by Dr. Brown. After further discussion, a new alternative was reached, and the above motion and second were withdrawn. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve the new alternative, thus deleting all lighting of the courts on Monday, extend- ing the hours of lighting on the north courts only to 10:00 p.m. Tuesday through Friday, extending the lighting on the north courts only by one hour on Saturday, with the lighting on Sunday to remain the same, for a trial period of six months, to begin on July 1 and run through December 31. The Commission further directed that lighting shields be added on three of the southern courts during the test period so that a judgement could be made as to their benefits, and that there be no change in club policy during the test period to ensure an accurate comparison. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart NOES: Hughes ABSENT: Baer TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14570 Ms. Negendank reported on the staff 5 Rockinghorse Road findings and alternatives to the re - Landowner: Julius & Martha Korta quest for a minor exception permit for Applicant: South Bay Engineering a substandard lot depth and the feasi- bility of a common access for this and the adjacent property. Alternative A is the original submittal and provides a 29-foot_setbdck_for-the.existing house and a 100 -foot lot depth for Lot 2. It requires a minor exception permit for 20 feet of the lot depth and the removal of the retaining wall. Alternative B reduces the setback for Lot 1 to the minimum 20 feet and re- sults in a lot depth of 109 feet. It requires a minor exception permit for 11 feet of lot depth and probably the removal of the retaining wall. Alter- native C meets the setback and lot depth requirements by using an interpreta- tion of Section 17.40.020, different from the one used by staff. She said staff would present clarifying language with the next Code amendment for the wording that defines lot depth since it currently is not as clear as it could be. Mr. McTaggart stated that there should be more control over the lot changes allowed by a minor exception permit. Public hearing was re -opened. Ron McAlpin, 304 Tejon Place, Palos Verdes Estates, representing South Bay Engineering, discussed the original project and alternatives and said he would accept any of the three proposals. In response to a Commission ques- tion, he said Alternative C moves the houses closer together. He requested that the shared driveway not be made a condition of approval, that more flexible wording be used. 5/11/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- 2 In response to Commission questions, Ms. Negendank said all three proposals meet the requirements for lot area square footage. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to conceptually approve Alternative B, pending geology review. Roll call vote was as follows: RECESS AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: Baer At 8:58 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. with the same members present. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 589 Mr. Putrino said the proposed plan was Lot 8, Tract 32991, Vista Del Mar for grading, houseprint, and driveway Applicant: John Vi.licich location which differ from the approved Landowner: David Frid plan for this lot. He said the proposed highest grade elevation would exceed the approved highest grade elevation by four feet. He said although the proposed elevation is higher than the approved height, the envelope above existing grade would be maintained. He said the proposed plan as well as the approved plan may create a view impairment to the northerly adjacent lot, of less than 20 percent maximum. Staff recom- mended approval since the proposed plan falls within the criteria of the Code and is not in excess for the primary use of the lot. Mr. McTaggart had several questions and concerns regarding how the 20 -percent view obstruction determination was obtained and the area in which the lot was measured to obtain minimum height for obstruction. The matter was tabled to follow the next agenda item in order to give staff the opportunity to review the plans again and respond to Mr. McTaggart"s questions. VARIANCE NO. 78 4000 Lorraine Road Applicant: Frank Politeo Landowner: Roy Smith Based on the findings as presented approval of the variance permitting to a maximum height of 20 feet. Mr. Gamble briefly described the pro- posed request for a storage addition which would increase the square footage of an existing detached garage, noting that 75 percent of the proposed addition would cantilever over a terraced bank. in the staff report, staff recommended the construction of a storage addition Roy Smith, 4000 Lorraine Road, owner of the property, addressed the Commission asking for approval of the variance. Paul Berglund, 6309 Via Ciega, presented pictures to the Commission and stated that no view obstruction would occur. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 82-8, thereby approving Variance No. 78 based on the findings as stated in the draft resolution. 5/11/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Baer Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 589 This item was re -opened and Mr. Putrino reported an error in the staff report whereby the lot was described as a down- sloping lot and should have been reported as an up-sloping lot. John Vilicich, the applicant, described the property and the means by which he measured the height of the structure. Mr. McTaggart expressed his concern that the height of the proposed structure was not measured from the proper position on the grade. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Grading Application No. 589. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern regarding the position of the driveway and the grade on which the pool will be installed. He also questioned the drainage capabilities and the number of retaining walls. Mr. Putrino said the pool was on less than a 35 -percent grade and that there were three continuous retaining walls. The above motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: Brown, McTaggart ABSENT: Baer By motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the item was tabled to enable staff to prepare an accurate view analysis. VARIANCE NO. 79 Mr. Putrino described the subject deck 2408 Rue Le Charlene indicating that it had already been Applicant/Landowner: Akemon constructed and is located in the south- east corner of the subject property abutting the east side and rear property lines. He said the height of the deck was approximately 20 feet 72 inches. He said the deck structure had been constructed on a grade of approximately 12:1 slope, or 66 percent. Staff recommendeddenial_of the variance due t - o the negative justification of the four _-required--flndings,-'d's�-stat-e(i-ln-_the staff report. Public hearing was opened. Anthony Vulin, 624 W. 9th Street, #201, San Pedro, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Califano, neighbors of the property, requested denial of the variance due to the fact that the landowners did not build it to Code and did not apply for proper permits. Jack Magnus, 4311 Wilshire, Los Angeles, representing the landowners, stated that he was aware that there were two violations, but that the structure did not interfere with anyone's view. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. 5/11/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolution No. 82-9,' thereby denying Variance No. 79 based on the inability of the Commission to make the required findings, as stated in the draft resolution. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Baer Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. TRAIL STANDARDS STUDY Mr. Gamble presented the proposed Trail Standards Study to the Commission, saying that the Study would serve as a framework for continuing planning by providing a graphic representation of design and construction standards for trails and paths in the City. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the Trail Standards Study. By motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council adoption of the proposed Trail Standards Study. COMMISSION REPORTS existing wording was too vague. Mr. McTaggart asked what was needed to change the wording in the Code for minor exception permit, as he felt the The Commission requested a joint meeting with the City Council, perhaps June 29, 1982. ADJOURNMENT 5/11/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 11:15 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, May 25, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. -5- �9