Loading...
PC MINS 19820727M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Ad3ourned Meeting July 27, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by outgoing Chairman Hughes; -who then turned the meeting over to newly appointed Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planners Ann Negendank and Sandra Lavitt, and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Joseph Gamble. CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving A) the minutes of the meeting of June 22, 1982; B) the minutes of the meet- ing of July 13, 1982; and C) a six-month time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 13887. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 Mr. Gamble said this item was initially 5845 Crestridge Road heard by the Commission at its June 27 Landowner/Applicant: Church of meeting. He said in response to the Latter Day Saints Commission's concerns re the location and readjustments of the antenna, the applicant provided staff with three directional azimuths, with respective angle elevations. He said following review of the applicant's submittal, staff made revisions including lowering the antenna's pad elevation five feet and lowering the 8 -foot wall to 6 feet. Based on these revisions, staff thought that the earth station could be sited in such a manner as to provide proper sight line clearance and minimize potential view impact from adjacent properties. Staff recommended that the Commission discuss the issues addressed in the staff report and provide direction to the applicant and that should the Commission wish to approve the project, staff would prepare a resolution and conditions for the next meeting. Public hearing was re -opened. Burley Johnson, 28115 Montereina Drive, San Pedro, concurred with the staff report but thought that the 6 -foot wall might be too low to prevent the vandalism which has occurred in other areas. He requested that the higher wall which was originally proposed be allowed to keep youths out. Jack Remington, architect, 304 Vista del Mar, Redondo Beach, said he found on several sites that with a low wall it becomes an attractive nuisance, as kids can easily scale a 6 -foot wall. He said a higher wall would be more of a deterrent, especially for teenagers. He said plants in front of the wall would soften the height. He noted that the wall would be well within all of the required setbacks. He said pushing the dish down 5 feet into the ground would be quite difficult as it would require a sump pump and that they would prefer to have it level, but that their major concern was to keep the wall at 7 to 8 feet. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said based on the information he was able to obtain, it appeared that the staff recommendations were a practical approach, from a technical point of view. He felt a 6 -foot wall would be sufficiently high. He said one of the reasons the dish was lowered was to keep the profile of the whole project low and that an 8 -foot wall would defeat that purpose. Mr. McTaggart said that it would not be too difficult to pump the water out of the area of the dish. Mr. McNulty thought the project as presented by staff this evening would be adequate. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, staff was directed to prepare the appropriate resolution and conditions approving Conditional Use Permit No. 81 based on the recommendations as outlined in the staff report this evening. Mr. Hinchliffe added that he also did not think the addition of a sump pump would present that much of a problem and that a 6 -foot fence was reasonable. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15086 Mr. Shepherd said the request was for 5 Mustang Road a two -lot subdivision, conforming to Landowner/Applicant: K. Adachi the minimum lot size requirements for the zoning district. He reviewed the project location and described the surrounding area. He said proposed lot #1 was an .irregular shaped lot which contains an existing residence, attached garage, swimming pool and deck, with an access/utility easement covering the north 7 feet of the lot. He noted that an existing wall and a portion of the pool deck lie within the easement. He said lot #2 has an existing building pad and currently houses a corral and stable. He said the proposed division of land would result in access off of the existing easement pole, which is also utilized by the two adjacent lots to the north. He said proposed condition #23 requires that the property owner be made aware of the easement encroachment (lot #1) and that any future widening of the access would require that the owner remove the wall and that portion of the deck that currently encroaches into the easement. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened and that the Commission approve the project subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Mr. McNulty asked if they could add a condition prohibiting direct access onto Palos Verdes Drive East. He said several property owners have created their own access onto the Drive and that because of the severe curve it would bela safety hazard for this property to do so. Director Hightower said a condition prohibiting the owners from making their own access was possible. Public hearing was opened. Kazumi Adachi, 4160 Hillcrest Drive, Los Angeles, said he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Joseph Cahn, 808 4th Street, Suite 301, Santa Monica, civil engineer, presented a map to the Commission showing the lots in the vicinity. He said all of the lots on that side of Mustang Road have straight divisions and requested to change their subdivision by straightening the lines. Director Hightower said the pro3ect could be approved subject to the two lots meeting all of the requirements of the Code. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. 7/27/82 "PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- 4 Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution No. 82-15, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 15086, subject to the con- ditions of Exhibit "A", as amended this evening with the addition of a con- dition prohibiting access from Palos Verdes Drive East, and with the change in the lot line as suggested by the applicant this evening, provided that the change meets all of the conditions of the Code. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. McNulty noted that he lived on Mustang Road, about fivb blocks-Trom-this site. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to:the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 82 Mr. Gamble said the request was for GRADING NO. 604 grading and to exceed the maximum 6386 Chartres Drive height limit with the construction of Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. Bisgaard a single family residence. He said Applicant: Jack Remington when measured from the top of the slab to the ridgeline the proposed height is 42 feet 6 inches; and when measured from the lowest finish grade to the ridgeline the proposed height is 31 feet 6 inches. He referred to the chart in the staff report, evaluating the grading and maximum height requirements per the Code. He reviewed the pro- posed grading and said staff determined it was excessive beyond that neces- sary for the permitted use of the lot; and that by lowering the structure's elevation, the applicant has created steep slopes and an excessive number of retaining walls. He referred to the drawings on display. With regard to the variance request, staff determined that the proposed structure, as de- signed, would cause view impairment to the adjacent property. Staff recom- mended denial of the variance because of the inability to make the required findings, per the draft resolution, and denial of the grading application based on excessive grading. Staff further recommended that the applicant be required to submit revised plans that conform more closely to the Code. Mr.Gamble responded to Commission questions and reviewed the photographs on display. He presented cross sections to the Commission. Public hearing was opened. Jack Remington, architect, 304 Vista del Mar, Redondo Beach, said the owner was unable to be present this evening and requested that the decision be postponed. He presented drawings and said the reason for the extra 12 -foot height is because it is a traditional house with proposed 9 -foot ceilings, which could be lowered if necessary, bringing the structure down to 30 feet. He said elimination of the racketball court would lessen the amount of grad- ing required. He said they pushed the structure down the hill to lower it and that the hip roof helps with the view. He said they have temporary approval from the Art Jury. Re the wall.,. he said the Code discusses a 32 - foot wall but also states any wall adjacent to a driveway may be 5 feet. He said by pushing the house back 5 feet, they were able to lower it about 22 to 3 feet..- He -said access to the racketball court is from the inside. Richard Hill, 6374 Chartres Drive, agreed with the staff recommendation. He said besides the view impairment, the house was out of character with respect to its location on the slope. He said he has a 180 -degree view and this project would obstruct 30 to 40 percent of his view of the ocean. Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, chairman of the Palos Verdes Monaco Architec- tural Committee, said the Committee reviewed the original plans two months ago but did not yet review the current proposal. He said no temporary approval has been given for these plans. 7/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 3 With regard to the applicant's request for postponement, Mr. Hinchliffe explained that because of noticing requirements, etc., items cannot be re- scheduled on short notice by staff and that was why the public hearing took place this evening as noticed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the landowner should have the opportunity to address the Commission. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to the next meeting when the applicant would be present, and the homeowners association was encouraged to meet prior to that time to review the plans if they wished to present any comments to the Commission concerning the pr03ect. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission tabled any further discussion until additional input is received and continued the item to the next meeting. RECESS At 8:54 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:03 p.m. with the same members present. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11 Ms. Lavitt said the request was to ZONE CHANGE NO. 10 change the site from Institutional to COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2 Residential, RS -1 (RPD), which is the Southwest corner Paseo del Mar and zoning designation of the surrounding La Rotonda Drive parcels. She said a clustering concept Landowner/Applicant: Palos Verdes will be encouraged to comply with the Peninsula Unified School District guidelines of both the Coastal Specific Plan and the Development Code. She said a bluff road would transverse the site at the southeastern corner and that there would be no construction seaward of the bluff road. She said the School District has approved the general location of the road. She said if a residential designation is deemed appro- priate for the site, the eight allowable structures constructed to a height of 16 feet would not obstruct public views from Palos Verdes Drive South, but there would be some obstruction of view from Paseo del Mar. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request. Public hearing was opened. Isobel Dunn, 3200 W. La Rotonda, representing the Ocean Terrace Homeowners Association, said the Association was in favor of the requested change and hoped to be informed of any future development proposals for the site. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution No. 82-16, thereby recommending to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 11, Zone Change No. 10, and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No. 2. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None COMMERCIAL ANTENNAE ISSUES Mr. Shepherd said at its May 25 meeting the Commission directed staff to review possible locations for commercial an- tennas in the City and to develop possible design criteria. He said to- night's staff report included a discussion of Building Code requirements for antenna towers and a discussion of the process and information gathered 7/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- i pertaining to design criteria and possible electromagnetic radiation exposure standards. Staff recommended that the Commission review and discuss the in- formation; discuss the location standards and design criteria; and direct staff to develop a draft ordinance. Dr. Brown thought staff provided the Commission with excellent information re site locations, design criteria, etc., and that the Commission should direct staff to proceed with the preparation of a draft ordinance. Mr. Hughes corrected some information in the staff report and said some of the guidelines might be hard to meet. He said the elimination of guy wires conflicted with the guideline concerning mass of tower. He said the mass could be decreased with the use of guy wires, but that a free-standing tower would require increasing the mass. He also noted that the higher the tower the lower the radiation level when measured from the ground. Mr. McTaggart said the crank -down feature might make sense for amateur an- tennas but would not be practical for a commercial antenna. He said.if the crank -down feature was required, it might be grounds for not allowing the antenna in that location. Mr. Hughes agreed, noting that commercial services broadcast on a continual basis and that the FCC requires that when a commercial station is installed a study be.performed indicating placement of the antenna, height, and the radiation pattern, and that moving the antenna up and down would alter that pattern. Mr. McTaggart thought the ordinance should include receiving antennae as well as transmitting antennae regulations, and also that the guidelines should require equipment to be located within structures unless an exception is granted, rather than locating it there whenever possible. He also thought they should be specific about the type of fencing permitted. Re restricting commercial antennas to specific areas, Mr. Hughes noted that two of the major existing systems were located in residential areas and wondered how this would affect expansion on those sites. Staff was to look into that, perhaps permitting antennas in a residential zone with a conditional use permit or perhaps not handling it by zones at all but just requiring a conditional use permit for any location. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff develop a draft ordinance to present to the Commission for further review. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Director Hightower said the Commission was requested to review the proposed 1982-83 capital improvement projects and report on their conformity with the General Plan and provide any other comments the Commission may have. Mr. Hughes strongly recommended that a public works project of the magnitude of the Hesse Park project be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the grading, siting, etc. The Commissioners reviewed the list of projects and commented on those items with which they had concerns. The Commission did not think that the City Hall undergrounding/entrance project was a priority item and it was the consensus of the Commission that the City should reconsider spending money for the project. The Commission suggested that the Palos Verdes Drive South - Forrestal project be ranked at the low end of priorities. The Com- mission expressed concern about the overplanting of landscaping in some areas, and that when sprinkler heads are installed they not be too close to- gether or create a dangerous situation with water going onto the street. Concern was expressed that perhaps street closure should be considered in some areas of the City instead of spending money on street improvements and/ or reconstruction. There was also concern expressed about the language used 7/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- 5, 0 in the description of some of the projects that may commit the City in a legal way. Mr. Hughes said he would like to see some deferred maintenance costs, par -w_-_'_ ticularly for landscaping projects, included in the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to recommend adop- tion of the 1982-83 Capital Improvement Program subject to the Commission's comments, and -the Commission reported that the Capital Improvement Program conforms to the General Plan. Mr. Hughes said he did not have time to review the Capital Improvement Pro- gram in depth. He felt there should be adequate time for review, some dis- cussion of conformance with the General Plan, and he requested that the City Manager be present to discuss the projects with the Commission. The above motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe NOES: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the City Manager could attend the next Commission meeting; Director Hightower said she would ask him. Mr. McTaggart asked about reviewing the General Plan. He thought it should be a priority item, and that perhaps some of the goals and objectives should be changed. Director Hightower said the project has been scaled down to just updating data. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, for the Commission to recommend to the City Council that the General Plan be reviewed in depth and that the document be revised to reflect the policy changes that have been made so as not to mislead anyone reading the document. Director Hightower said when the'touncilmembersl-lookbd-at allofthe-pro- grams they did not feel the complete review of the General Plan was a top priority at this time. Mr. McTaggart said that the document should be reviewed by a joint Council/ Commission committee to come up with proposed changes. He noted it was supposed to be a living document and that it has been more than five years since its adoption. The above motion carried, with Mr. Hinchliffe dissenting. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN ADJOURNMENT 7/27/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, Mr. McTaggart was elected Vice -Chairman. At 10:26 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, August 10, 1982, at 7:30 p.m.