Loading...
PC MINS 19830125 APPROVED AS PRESENTED FEBRUARY 8, 1983 MINUTES City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 25 , 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 p.m. in the Community Room, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: Brown Also present were Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd, Joseph Gamble , and Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of January 11 , 1983 , as presented. VARIANCE NO. 88 Mr. Gamble said the request was for 5 Martingale Drive a residential addition exceeding 30 Landowner/Applicant: Morin feet in height. He said the site was located at the crest of a small hill across from Rockinghorse Canyon and currently houses a single family residence and attached garage. He said the addition is proposed to be located over the existing garage and that a preliminary view analysis indicates that the addition would not cause impairment of views from the surrounding properties. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the request and direct the applicant to redesign the addition so that it complies with the height limitation set forth in the Development Code. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Gamble said staff did discuss alternatives with the architect. Public hearing was opened. Mr. McNulty said for the record that the architect involved in this project was a personal friend of his and also designed his home. He said he would not vote on the matter or join in any discussions. Larry Herres, architect, 22850 Crenshaw Boulevard, #204 , Torrance, said they were proposing a two-story addition above the garage. He said the addition would blend with the existing up-sloping roof on the back side of the house . It was his contention that what was presently designed would blend with the existing house and lessen the impact. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Herres said the existing roof pitch is 4 :12 which is the minimum with a cedar shake roof. He said the addition is cantilevered at the front and by bringing the wall back they could save 10-11 inches. He said the ceiling in the family room is proposed at 8 feet 1 inch, and the ceiling in the master bedroom would slope down to 7 feet 8 inches. He said if he lowered the pitch and moved the front wall back the addition would still not meet the 30-foot height limit. He said with special underlying foil the pitch could be lowered to 3-1/2:12 . By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and carried, the public hearing was closed. 111 Mr. McTaggart said although he was not opposed to the project, he was having a difficult time making the required findings. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred. He asked staff about view impact. Ms. Lavitt said a preliminary view analysis with no photographs indicated no view obstruction. Mr. Hughes said there was merit to the architect' s comments and that in this case the requested proposal was aesthetically more pleasing than the alternative. He said there was a problem dealing with hillside properties and that in this case the Code did not leave the best possible design solutions . He said if there was consensus that the Commission would be able to make the findings he would suggest that staff be directed to do a view analysis to make sure there is no view impairment. He was of the opinion that he could make the findings provided that there was no view impairment. There was consensus of the Commission for that. Staff was directed to perform a view analysis . By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, the public hearing was re-opened and continued. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would like to make sure the addition is as low as possible and suggested that the applicant work out a compromise re the ridge l ine . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15264 Mr. Putrino said the proposed project 43 Avenida Corona is for the division of a 40 ,146 square Applicant/Landowner: Melillo foot site into two parcels. He said lot #1 would have an area of 20 ,146 square feet and lot #2 of 20 ,000 square feet. He said both lots would be irregularly shaped and both would have access from Avenida Corona. Staff found that the proposed lot split complies with the City' s Development Code and General Plan and with the State Subdivision Map Act and, therefore , recommended approval of the lot split subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolu- tion. Mr. Hughes said the site fronted and was serviced by a private street and, therefore , the area to the centerline of the street was considered part of the lot. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Putrino said there was sufficient area on lot #1 to construct a house and garage while maintaining the required setbacks and not encroaching onto slopes over 35 percent. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if it would be helpful to have a building restriction line on the map. Ms. Lavitt said it would be helpful, that it would go on the parcel map itself and would be recorded on the deed . Mr. Hughes was concerned about the location of the existing septic tank and leach field. Public hearing was opened. Dan Melillo, 43 Avenida Corona, said the site has good frontage and the lot split was within the Code requirements. He said the existing garage would be moved to the opposite side and that his intention was to remodel the existing home which is where he currently resides. He showed the location of the septic tank on the map. He said a geological report was done and that the land is sound. 1/25/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hughes said staff should verify the location of the existing septic tank and leach field. He asked if the garage could be relocated in the approximate area indicated by the applicant. Mr. Putrino said it could as a two -car garage but was not sure about a three -car garage. Margaret Stuck, owner of 36 Avenida Corona, said she brought with her a map from the Building Department which shows the property as a .75 acre site and yet the new survey shows it as a .92 acre site. Mr. Hughes said the difference was possibly due to the fact that the portion of the street up to the centerline is counted as part of this lot because it is a private street. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission remanded the item back to staff for verification of the septic tank and leach field. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 16 Commercial Antennae copy of the draft ordinance comments have been included revisions discussed in the changes: Mr. Shepherd said on December 7, 1982 the City Council initiated a Code amendment for the regulation of commercial antennae. He said a was sent to the City Attorney and his oral in Section 17.41.120. In addition to the staff report, he suggested the following 17.40.050 B. 1. Remove "in single family residential districts" Chapter 17.41 Change to read "Commercial Radio, Television...." 17.41.110 Change to read ...... approval of a commercial radio, television...." 17.41.120 A. Change to read "New towers, related structures and tower sites...." Staff recommended that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing, review and consider the proposed additions discussed in the staff report and adopt the draft resolution recommending Code Amendment No. 16. Public hearing was opened. Frank Accardo, 6453 Via De Anzar, said he was in the antenna business. He said requiring a conditional use permit for all antennas would create a hardship to small businesses like his. He said he installs antennas at apartment houses, which would be commercial usage. Mr. Hughes said residential antennas would not require a conditional use permit and that there was already an antenna permit process for non-commercial usage. He said tonight's proposal was to establish a permit process for commercial antennas, reception and transmission. He said parabolic dishes are large and are clearly structures. He said the placement of the antennas and their potential to be seen were very important considerations. He said it was the City's intent to minimize view obstruction. Mr. Accardo said trees represented the same type of problem but the City will not deal with the issue because it is too complicated. He suggested that the antenna issue is also too complicated. He agreed there should be laws but said requiring a permit and fee for every antenna would drive the small businessmen out of business since they are in competition with major companies for On and Select TV. He was concerned about the competition violating the law with no City enforcement. 1/25/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 3 By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said the installation of On and Select programming in residential homes was a non-commercial activity in terms of the antenna. He said what made it unique was the appliance inside the house. Mr. McTaggart said they could send the issue to the City Attorney for clarity. He said perhaps the City should send a copy of the regulations to all of the antenna companies. Ms. Lavitt said the requirement for an antenna permit has been advertised in the City's Newsletter several times. She said there have been a lot of television antenna permits issued by the City but that On TV has never been in to obtain a permit. Mr. McNulty said no one was enforcing the existing ordinance and suggested sending a letter to the major companies asking them to identify each of the residences in this City with an antenna in order to determine whether or not they have the required permits. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned that the existing ordinance was not being enforced. He said the Commission has received testimony that the ordinance represents a hardship on local businessmen and that large businesses are not complying with the Code and the City has not been enforcing it. Ms. Lavitt said the item could be continued to the next meeting for responses to the Commission's concerns. She said it has been the City Council's policy to enforce on a complaint basis only. Mr. Hughes said television antennas were specifically included in the ordinance because the City Council wanted all antennas regulated so as to have a mechanism to handle complaints. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 83-1 recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 16 for the regulation of commercial antennae as presented in the draft ordinance, as amended this evening. Mr. McTaggart felt clarification was necessary to make sure it is clearly understood that the small antennas for home viewing, whether multiple or single family residential viewing, do not require a conditional use permit but instead require a regular antenna permit. He said if someone in the antenna business did not understand that issue, as was evident from Mr. Accardo's testimoney, a lot of other people would not. He said the public testimony tonight indicates there is confusion. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: Brown Mr. Hinchliffe directed staff to identify the major suppliers in the City and put them on notice of the City's regulations. ADJOURNMENT 1/25/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 9:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, February 8, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. -4- 1�