PC MINS 19821214_ G
0
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
December 14, 1982
Approved as
presented on
January 11, 1983
(61)
The meeting was called to order at 7:55 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Vice -Chairman McTaggart.
PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart
ABSENT: Hinchliffe
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner
Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Assistant Planners Jon Shepherd and Joe Gamble.
COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Hughes suggested placing on the
agenda the staff memo dated December
10, 1982 concerning Golden Cove. He
thought it should be discussed by the Commission. The other Commissioners
concurred and the item was added to the agenda under Staff Reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by
Mr. McNulty, the Consent Calendar
was unanimously passed, thereby
approving the minutes of the meeting of November 23, 1982, as presented.
VARIANCE NO. 87 Mr. Shepherd said the request was to
5039 Rockvalley Road permit 1) a 16 -foot 6 -inch high
Landowner/Applicant: Jones accessory building (cabana); 2) a
9 -foot 6 -inch high trellis within the
sideyard setback; and 3) a 9 -foot high wall along the top of the slope
in the rear portion of the property. He said the majority of the site is
a pad lot with approximately 20 feet of the rear yard sloping down toward
Hawthorne Boulevard. He said there was an existing 5 -foot fence running
along the top of the slope. He said the property to the south was at a
higher elevation and the property to the north was lower. He referred to
the project considerations and staff findings as listed in the report. It
was staff's opinion that there were two options available: A) to deny the
project since the required findings could not be made; and B) to table
the matter to allow the applicant to submit a survey conducted by a
licensed acoustical engineer re the effects of traffic noise upon the
subject property with recommendations of mitigating measures. Staff
recommended denial unless the Commission determines that a traffic noise
study is needed prior to final determination.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Shepherd said if the cabana were
lowered to 12 feet and the trellis removed from the setback as described
in alternative B, a variance would still be required for the wall.
Public hearing was opened.
Barry Schweiger, architect, said the residence backs up to Hawthorne
Boulevard which is one of the busiest and noisiest streets in the City.
He said the project would create a sound barrier and allow the residents
use of their back yard without suffering from the traffic noise. He said
the creation of a closed environment would prevent noise within the cabana
and would allow for privacy. He said the structure could be lowered. He
said the location of the property in relation to Hawthorne Boulevard
represented a unique situation. He said the residents were trying to
recapture the quiet that existed 8 years ago. He said the noise was due
to the growth of the City. He reviewed the photographs which were on
display.
Bob Bacharach, 5033 Rockvalley Road, said he wanted his neighbors to be
able to enjoy their back yard and said the traffic noise was significant.
He said, however, that he would like the wall kept to a minimum height so
that the project would have a minimal effect on his property.
By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny Variance No.
87 based upon the inability of the Commission to make required findings.
Dr. Brown said the noise and privacy comments were valid but agreed with
Mr. Bacharach that the proposed wall and cabana were higher than what
reasonably should be allowed. He said he would be willing to table the
matter to allow the architect the opportunity to revise the plans.
Mr. McNulty thought the reasons for the request were understandable but
was concerned about excessive impact and concurred with Dr. Brown re
tabling the matter for revisions.
Mr. Hughes strongly suggested that the architect obtain from staff a copy
of the City's Development Code and that the project be designed to meet
that Code.
Mr. Hughes amended the above motion to deny this variance application
without prejudice.
Dr. Brown agreed to that amendment.
Mr. McTaggart was opposed to a 9 -foot wall from properly line to property
line and said it would look like a structure from the street. He did not
think it was necessary to go to that height and said a 6 -foot wall as
allowed by Code would be adequate to abate noise.
Roll call vote on the above motion, as amended, was as follows:
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart
NOES: Brown, McNulty
ABSENT: Hinchliffe
The motion failed due to the lack of a majority of affirmative votes.
Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to table the item
until staff finds that the plans have been revised appropriately by the
applicant, at which time the matter will come back before the Commission
for reconsideration with the public hearing continued to that time.
Mr. Hughes thought that the variance application should be denied because
the Commission could not make the findings. He said it was not the duty
of the Commission to redesign the pro3ect. He said, however, that he
would vote in favor of the motion only to avoid another tie vote.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty
NOES: McTaggart
ABSENT: Hinchliffe
By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was reopened and continued.
12/14/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT 119 APPEAL Mr. Shepherd said the requested
5 Rockinghorse Road action was to overturn staff's
Appellant: D. & D. Banker approval of the project, proposed
Landowner: J. & M. Korta to reduce the lot depth requirement
from 120 feet to 108 feet for lot 2
of Tentative Parcel Map No. 14570.
He referred to the chronology of associated events as presented in the
staff report. He said the tentative parcel map was conceptually approved
with the requested lot depth, and that the lot meets the square footage
requirements. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal,
thereby upholding the approval for a lot depth reduction.
Don Banker, 20 -year resident of 5 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, said he was
out of the country when the lot split was considered and, therefore, did
not have the opportunity to voice his objections at that time. He said
the split would destroy the rural atmosphere of the area.
Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering, 304 Tejon Place, Palos Verdes Estates,
representing the landowner, said the lot was suitable for a split and, in
fact, was better suited than many others which have been approved over the
years.
Julius Korta, 5 Rockinghorse Road, said all of the lots on the street were
now 1/2 -acre lots with the exception of his and that of his neighbor. He
said splitting the lots did not destroy the possibility of having horses.
By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried with Mr.
McTaggart dissenting, the Commission denied the appeal of Minor Exception
Permit NO. 119, thereby approving the requested lot depth reduction to 108
feet.
Mr. McTaggart siad he was still of the opinion that lot dimension reductions
were not intended to come under the minor exception permit process. He
noted, however, that the City Attorney determined that it was appropriate.
Mr. McTaggart advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen calendar days.
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 631 Mr. Gamble said the applicant was
7284 Berryhill Drive requesting approval for a deck to be
Landowner/Applicant: Morrison constructed on a slope which exceeds
35 percent. He said the cantilevered
deck was proposed to increase the
outdoor living area. Unless it is determined that the proposed deck will
be detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare, staff recommended
that the Commission approve the project with the condition that the
applicant submit to the Director of Planning for review and approval a
landscape plan denoting a vegetative buffer around the perimeter of the
deck.
Jim Morrison, 7284 Berryhill Drive, applicant, said he would be happy to
landscape around the project with appropriate shrubbery.
By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
the Commission approved Grading Application No. 631 subject to the condi-
tion that the applicant submit to the Director of Planning for review and
approval a landscape plan denoting a vegetative buffer around the perim-
eter of the deck.
Mr. McTaggart advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen calendar days.
RECESS
12/14/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
At 8:50 p.m. a brief recess was
called. The meeting reconvened at
8:57 p.m. with the same members
present.
-3-
3
III 111
GOLDEN COVE MEMO Mr. Hughes said the memo was incorrect
in that the Commission did not
discuss the matter and, in fact,
did not receive copies of all materials under review at the referenced
Council meeting. He said the memo was misleading in that it appeared to
indicate that all of the items listed in the attachments to the memo were
agreed upon. He said since the memo is a public document somehow it
should be made clear that the review criteria listed in the report were
points that the staff would like to negotiate with the applicant and not
points that have been agreed upon and must be followed.
Ms. Lav i tt explained that they were items for discussion only.
Mr. Hughes said tonight' s minutes should reflect the correction to the
memo that the Commission has not discussed on any formal basis the request
for housing.
Mr. McNulty agreed and recommended a joint Council/Commission meeting to
discuss the matter. The other Commissioners concurred.
Director Hightower reminded the Commission that a second meeting had not
been scheduled for December because the City Hall would be closed for the
holidays.
ADJOURNMENT At 9 :24 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
January 11 , 1983 , at 7 :30 p.m.
12/14/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-