Loading...
PC MINS 19820928M 1 14 U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 28, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: Brown Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd, Joseph Gamble, and Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. McNulty, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby ap- proving the minutes of the meeting of September 14, 1982, and adopting Resolution No. 82-24 approving Variance No. 84. VARIANCE NO. 85 Mr. Putrino said at the last meeting 4465 Miraleste Drive the Commission discussed and expressed Landowner/Applicant: Rumery concern about the vehicular egress visibility and thought the safety of both the applicant and the public should be considered. He said the matter, therefore, was referred to staff to perform an analysis of safety visibility factors for property access, and that the analysis was documented in the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the variance with a condition to remove top of slope vegetation (adjacent to Miraleste Drive) and plant vegetation at the toe of same slope (directly ad3acent to driveway) and keep it trimmed to maintain good visi- bility. Mr. McNulty asked if any consideration was given as to the height of the vegetation. Mr. Putrino said the vegetation, if moved, could be maintained at a maximum height of about six feet. By motion of Mr. McNulty, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hea-ting was re -opened. John Rumery, applicant, said he was concerned about the vegetation because of the livability of the house. He said his gardener indicated that trimming the existing trees down to the point where no greenery is left would kill them. He said the vegetation offers protection against noise, and rocks and bottles which are thrown by youths. He said it would be very difficult to plant on the slope unless the City puts a retaining wall along the inside to prevent the earth from crumbling down onto the driveway area. He said another alternative to solve the visibility issue would be to erect a large mirror on the post. He reiterated that there has never been a problem in the 25 years he has lived there. He said the Director of Public Works agreed that the problem was not unique to his property but instead existed all along the street. He said all four homes there have no front yards, that it all belongs to the City. By motion of Mr. McNulty, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said he still maintained the same position as expressed at the last meeting. He said it is an existing situation and that the plan before the Commission did not alter that situation. He said the rest of the trees belonged to the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District and that it had no intention of trimming the trees and the City had no jurisdiction over that District. He thought the Commission should focus its attention on the requested structure and whether or not it should be approved. Mr. McTaggart did not think that amount of vegetation would attenuate sound. He suggested only removing some of the vegetation to provide the necessary visibility rather than all of it. He said the driveway was unsafe and the location of the requested variance would increase the use of that driveway. Mr. McNulty said if the applicant moved the garage back far enough to pro- vide the required turn -around area the south entrance could be closed off. Mr. Hughes did not think they had the 3urisdiction or authority to consider the access situation. He said the Commission was considering a garage addition but that all discussions have been about a problem unrelated to the actual request. Mr. Hinchliffe said another solution would be to address the issue to the City Attorney and find out if there was a mechanism the City could use in this case, like a liability waiver. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to deny Variance No. 85, based on the Commission's failure to make the findings. Mr. McTaggart said he would go along with Mr. McNulty's suggestion of moving the garage back to solve the turning radius problem and require the applicant's access be the safest possible way, or his own suggestion of cutting some of the vegetation. Mr. Rumery said he would consult with a landscape firm regarding relocating the trees. He said while the north driveway provided the safest exit, it was safer to enter by the south driveway and he did not want it closed off. Mr. Hughes withdrew the above motion and Mr. Hinchliffe withdrew his second. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to adopt Resolution No. 82-25, thereby approving Variance No. 85 based upon the original recom- mendations by staff as presented at the last meeting. Mr. McTaggart suggested a condition that the garage be set back five feet to provide additional turning radius and that the vegetation be trimmed to provide better sight distance at the south driveway. It was the consensus of the Commission to not require a condition for trim- ming the vegetation. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested requiring a hold harmless agreement but thought they should first check with the City Attorney. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the above motion was changed and the Commission instead granted conceptual approval of the pro3ect based on the following conditions: 1) That the garage be set back (a maximum of five feet) in such a manner as to provide an adequate legal ,turning radius, and 2) That the legal questions of the variance be reviewed by the City Attorney to determine whether or not a hold harmless agreement or some other instrument would be appropriate to provide the City with legal protec- tion with regard to liability. 9/28/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES om 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 33 REVISION Ms. Lavitt said on August 24 the Com - Lot 9, Tract 32110, south end of mission considered this item and Crenshaw Boulevard recommended a redesign of the project Landowner: Rodgeveller which more closely conformed to the approved footprint and did not encroach into the side yard setbacks. She said the redesigned project still exceeds the approved footprint for the tract but no longer encroaches into the side yard setback and would maintain the maximum ridge elevation for the lot as established in the tract conditions. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the revision of Conditional Use Permit No. 33 pertaining to lot 9 only. Patrick Killen, 125 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, said they previously designed a one-story plan that encroached into the side yard by 20 percent. He said the redesigned two-story scheme allows them to make the footprint smaller and meet the setback requirements. He said they have turned the building towards the ocean and provided a view corri- dor. He said they would have to cut in for the driveway but would try to keep grading to a minimum. He said the approved ridgeline and the proposed ridgeline are both at 1181 feet. He said they have tried to locate the building centrally on the lot. Mr. McNulty was concerned that the proposed grading, etc., would throw the entire development off. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, said the primary criteria in this area of the tract was for the ridgeline. He said the grading should be able to be blended and he did not think there would be a problem. He said although the model for the tract showed hip -stype roofs, it was not meant as a commitment that every house would be the same, that there was flexibility on that. Mr. Hughes said if the ridgeline was at 1181, as was approved, there should be no problem with regard to view obstruction. He thought in this case the footprint deviation would not present a problem. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about the proposed maid's quarters over the garage. Mr. Killen said it would consist of one bedroom and one bathroom and that there would be no kitchen. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 82-25, thereby approving the revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 33 for lot 9. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 8:57 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15258 Mr. Gamble said the request was for a VARIANCE NO. 81 two -lot subdivision with substandard Northeast corner of Forrestal Dr. lot size. He referred to the chart in and Palos Verdes Drive South the staff report comparing the proposal Landowner: W. and S. Au -Yang with the Code requirements. He said Engineer: Morey and Associates although the properties to the east (Seacliff Hills) range in size from 13,420 to 65,000, that development consists of 57 homes on 145 acres, and was developed as a Residential Planned Development. He said the properties to the north and west do not share the same physical constraints as the subject site. He said less than 20 percent 9/28/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- of parcel A is available for the houseprint and accessory structures and staff was of the opinion that the size of the buildable portion is i_ncon- sistent- ith other RS -1 properties in"the City:T Hemreferred to=thye variance findings listed in the staff report.` Staff recommended that the Commission deny the project since the required findings cannot be made. Public hearing was opened. Robert Katherman, Morey and Associates, 2007 Sawtelle Boulevard, Los Angeles, said the subject parcel is a remnant bounded on one side by a major highway and on the other side by a collector street. He said physical realignment is proposed for Palos Verdes Drive South in approximately two to three years which would add approximately two-tenths of an acre to the site. He said if the site was part of the Seacliff Hills development it would be one of the largest parcels and entitled to two lots. He said the unusual circum- stances and property rights must be considered. He said the site did not have landslide problems and that both lots would be buildable. He said it was the last site to be developed in the area and that it would not have any impacts on surrounding land uses. He said by granting the variance the Commission would remedy an inequitable situation and that the basis for the hardship and property right is that the site was not included in the Sea - cliff Hills subdivision and that the property has an excessive amount of public street dedication. Dick Motz, 32413 Searaven Drive, was concerned that the site was zoned RS -1 and the variance would create a substandard lot. He was also concerned about access for the proposed parcels. He said most of parcel A was un - developable. If the project were to be approved, he wondered if the ridge - lines and footprints would be established. He said the subject lot was not a remnant piece of property, that it was never part of Seacliff Hills and had always been a single lot. Elaine Motz, 32413 Searaven Drive, said they were very concerned about the project as it was the last piece of property that would affect their view. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to Commission questions, Pair. Gamble said approximately 20 per- cent of parcel B was greater than 35 percent slope. Mr. McTaggart said it appeared that parcel A, as proposed, had severe con- straints, including the required driveway easement for parcel B and a con- crete drainage channel. He said the area left is considerably constrained by slopes of over 35 percent and he did not think it was a viable lot. He said he could not make the findings to support a variance. Mr. Hughes said the site did not meet the RS -1 requirements for a lot split and the request would create substandard lots with very little buildable area. Mr. Hinchliffe noted that access was also a problem. In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower said the property was initially zoned RS -1 because of the slope conditions of the site. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to adopt Resolution No. 82-26, thereby denying Variance No. 81 based on the Commission's in- ability to make the findings, as stated in the staff report. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: Brown 9/28/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- 4- n E, Mr.Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to adopt Resolution No. 82-27, thereby denying Tentative Parcel Map No 258 because the pro- posedsubdivision.=did not comply-wi-th the Code Tot _min-imum_lot. area. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: Brown Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal both decisions to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. DRAFT COMMERCIAL ANTENNA ORDINANCE Mr. Shepherd said at the July 27 meeting the Commission directed staff to develop a draft Commercial Antenna Ordinance and return it to the Commission for review and comment. He said since that meeting staff has received information from Multnomah County, Oregon, regarding a study of potential human health effects from exposure to non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) and noted that the -doc=uments had been provided to assist the Commission in determining if NIER exposure level standards should be addressed in the ordinance. Staff recommended that the Commission review and di.scuss£he draft ordinance_ -and the attached - documents, and direct staff to incorporate any revisions and/or additions to the draft ordinance and, if necessary, return to a future meeting with a revised draft ordinance. Mr. Hughes was concerned about the definition of earth station and said it generally means an antenna transmitting or receiving from a satellite. He said in reference to public utility communications it was called a relay station. He said the ordinance should specifically separate earth stations from microwave stations. It was the consensus of the Commission that a subcommittee made up of Mr. Hughes and Mr.McTaggart would work on the draft ordinance with Mr. Shepherd. ADJOURNMENT 9/28/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 10:08 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, October 12, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. -5- 6-