Loading...
PC MINS 19820622M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 22, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Acting Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Brown, McNulty, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: McTaggart ABSENT: Hinchliffe Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Alice Bergquist Angus, and Assistant Planners Joe Gamble and Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Hughes proposed moving action on the Consent Calendar to the end of the meeting since there were only three members present and Mr. McNulty had not been present during public hearings on the maps. Dr. Brown seconded the motion and as there were no objections, it was so ordered. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 589 Mr. Putrino said at its may 11 meeting Lot 8, Tract 32991; Vista del Mar the Commission discussed and then Landowner: David Frid tabled this item to enable staff to Applicant: John Vilicich prepare an accurate view analysis and review plans to respond to Commission questions. He said a panoramic photo- graph was taken from lot 47 (directly north of the subject site) and that it was determined that the range of view was approximately 200 degrees. He said other considerations were that the driveway had been designed to avoid drainage runoff problems and the side yard retaining wall, next to the pool, had been redesigned to meet the maximum height for side yard retaining walls and the required minimum five-foot high wall surrounding the pool. Staff recommended approval since the proposed plan falls within the criteria of the Code and is not in excess for the primary use of the lot. He said the Commission should discuss the significance of the 6.2 percent view impair- ment, since that percentage was small in comparison to the 200 -degree view, and a larger portion of Catalina Island could be seen. John Vilicich, 1622 South Gaffey, San Pedro, presented drawings and pano- ramic view photographs and discussed the proposed project. He did not feel there would be any significant view impairment. It was the consensus of the Commission that the six percent view impairment was not significant. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 589 was approved. Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 Mr. Gamble said the request was for 5845 Crestridge Road the construction of an earth station Landowner/Applicant: Church of for satellite reception and that the Latter Day Saints public hearing had been noticed. He said the proposed earth station would be located on the west side of the existing building on the subject site, and would consist of an antenna dish, a low -noise amplifier, and a coaxial cable. He said when measured from grade to the top of the antenna dish, the proposed height of the earth station was approximately 13 feet. He said even though the applicant pro- posed an eight -foot high wall, approximately one-third of the dish antenna would be visible from Crestridge Road. He said in order to further mini- mize the potential visual impact, staff offered alternatives, as listed in the staff report. The proposed earth station would not radiate harmful levels of microwave energy -and through proper screening practices the antenna's visual impact could be minimized. Staff recommended that the Commission review and discuss the alternatives and require that the appli- cant submit a revised proposal based on the input from tonight's meeting. He said the revised proposal should include all pertinent information re- lated to the siting of an earth station. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:50 p.m. Burley Johnson, San Pedro, said in order to achieve communications between the church headquarters in Salt Lake City, a program was initiated to in- stall satellite equipment. He said the antenna consists of a 3.65 meter dish, roughly 12 feet in diameter, secured to the ground with cement pillars. He said there were several major constraints in choosing the location of the dish such as distance from buildings, needed for a direct line of sight from the satellite, etc. He said they wanted to screen the antenna from view not only for aesthetic reasons but to prevent vandalism. He said they proposed planting a row of mature juniper trees along the fence to obscure the portion of the dish above the wall and that there would be little or no view from the street. He said the angle was critical because of the height of the roof and the need for direct line of sight. He said in addi- tion to the problems of re -enforcing the walls, recessing the dish would cause them to lose that direct line of sight. He also said he was told that water would be damaging to this expensive equipment and that they must keep it as dry as possible, preferably above ground. Stanley Woster, San Pedro, presented drawings and technical information. He said they proposed an eight -foot high wall and that it was 9.8 feet to the top of the dish. Mr. Hughes said the Commission needed to see a three dimensional analysis to determine whether there is adequate clearance. He said the applicant should indicate the exact placement of the antenna and what that view angle is and the direction the antenna would be facing. He said they needed an accurate representation of where the dish would be located and some view analysis of where the dish is looking up over the roof and where it is pointed. He said there was concern that it not be visible from the street and that they would like to keep it below the surrounding fence if possible. He said they needed to know where the dish could go if recessed and how far it could be recessed. Mr. Johnson described the proposed position of -the -antenna and said at that angle at ground level they would have just the clearance necessary for the West Star Four satellite. He said by lowering the dish they would lose that clearance. Mr. Hughes said he would like to see that demonstrated, with some care as to how it is graphically presented, so that the Commission can make that determination. He said the Commission wanted to deal with this application properly and minimize the appearance of the antenna as much as possible. Mr. McNulty pointed out that the information would also be helpful to the applicant, that they should totally analyze this before establishing the location, etc., so that re -adjustments will not be necessary. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. 6/22/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- 2- a Mr. Hughes said they needed to know where the satellite is and where the sight lines are over the structure. He said the Commission would like more analysis, a look at how they might accommodate removing the dish from physi- cal view as well as planting shr.ubbbery. The other Commissioners concurred. Mr. McTaggart said he would like to see a wall that more closely conforms to the City's Code, and that the wall could be located further away from the antenna and provide more screening at a lower height. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33206 Ms. Angus explained that this was a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 request for private streets and security San Pedro Hill - Crest Road devices and that the Commission should Applicant: S & S Construction review the request and make a recom- mendation to the City Council. She said the Director of Public Works re- viewed the request and indicated that he had no objections if the following three conditions were met: 1) maintenance by the homeowners of the roads and storm sewers is insured by the CC&Rs; 2) the roads are designed and built to City standards; and 3) the roads are inspected by the City/County for compliance with the standards. She said the proposal was basically the same request that the Commission heard in May, 1979, at which time the Commission recommended denial, primarily based upon the idea that this viewing area should be publicly accessible. She said the General Plan states that private streets can be allowed if certain conditions can be met, as stated in the staff report, and that those conditions can be met. She said the basic consideration is between allowing full public access to the area versus maintenance costs to the City. Staff recommended that the Commission request additional pedestrian access to the site. She said if the applicant is willing to provide enough access so that the Commission feels the view from the site will be accessible to the public, the Commission should recommend approval of private roads to the City Council subject to the conditions listed by the Director of Public Works. Dr. Brown noted that this proposal had been denied twice, once in the original proposal and again in 1979. Ms. Angus said the request for private streets was denied by the Commis- sion but never went to the City Council, as the applicant withdrew the last request. Mr. Hughes asked if there was any mechanism available to insure full access to the public with private streets. Director Hightower said the gate could be prohibited. Mr. Hughes opened the meeting for public testimony. Alan Cummins, Shapell Industries, said they did twice request private streets on this tract but that since 1979 circumstances have changed which warrant reconsideration of the request and that money is not readily available to cities now. He said reduced costs to the City would allow the Public Works Department to spend its money in other areas, thus saving the City money. He said private streets would increase the marketability of these homes because of the security. He said one of the prime aspects of the original denial was that private streets would create an enclave. He believed that having private streets and a video security system would increase the speed of reporting problems and would also prevent people from throwing debris over the area as they are doing now. He said they would like to perform a study with the staff to provide additional access. He said they would like to regulate the traffic through the community without obstructing pedestrian access. He felt the request was reasonable and would be mutually beneficial. 6/22/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 0 3 Mr. McNulty said there should be something in the CC&Rs guaranteeing public access.- Mr. ccess. Mr. Cummins said they would provide a public easement for the trail system for pedestrian access. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Director Hightower said the tract currently provides public access to a look -out point but that the trail does not circle the property. Mr. Cummins said they proposed a guard station with video monitors and an alarm system. Dave Hasson, project engineer, said he was available to answer any technical questions the Commission may have on the project. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public testimony portion of -the meeting was closed. Dr. Brown said there was nothing different from the previous proposal and he felt the request was still unwarranted and did not agree with the applicant's arguments. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request for private streets. Mr. McTaggart said if the applicant had presented a proposal which provided benefit to the City he would have considered it, but that this was essen- tially the same proposal. He felt access to what is one of the most prime viewing areas of the City was an important asset to the City. Mr. McNulty said it appeared there was no change from the previous proposal and asked if they could allow additional time for the applicant to work on this as he requested. Mr. McTaggart did not feel the City staff should be put in the position of being the designers. Mr. McNulty declared that as an attorney, he had been involved with a suit against this particular company. Mr. Hughes said to his knowledge the City Council has not changed its policy of not creating private roads. He said there were a number of private communities existing in the City and that they create many problems. He said the creation of private enclaves was not in the best interests of the City and that he could not see any public benefit with closing those streets. He said street maintenance becomes a problem with private roads because it is a financial burden to those few homeowners. He did not feel pedestrian access to this site was sufficient as the area is one of the prime viewing areas of the City and should be available to the public. Roll call vote on the above motion recommending to the City Council denial of the request was as -follows: AYES: Brown, McNulty, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby 1) approv- ing the minutes of the meeting of June 8, 1982; 2) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 14570 with the adoption of Resolution No. 82-14; and 3) recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 32322. 6/22/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4= U COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes suggested postponing the election of Vice -Chairman until Por. Hinchliffe, the new Commission Chair- man, is present. The other Commissioners concurred. ADJOURNMENT 6/22/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 8:58 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, July 13, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. 5"