Loading...
PC MINS 19840110 . t MINUTESat444 e-14-0-4-e) 1/41c/1r 5( a City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 10,1984 The Meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Brown, McNulty, Ortolano, Von Hagen, Wike Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, and Assistant Planner Jonathan Shepherd. COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Von Hagen requested a correction be made to the January 3 minutes. It should read: "Mr. Von Hagen was in oppostion to meeting at Hesse Park. " Mrs. Ortolano requested that a correction be made on Page 4 of the December 13, 1983 minutes. It should read: "Mrs. Ortolano requested that Mrs. Harlow be more specific in describing the percentage impaired. " Mrs. Wike moved, seconded by Mr. McNulty to approve the minutes of December 13 and 27, 1983 and January 3, 1984 with the noted corrections. VARIANCE NO. 94 - PUBLIC HEARING The staff report was presented by MR. AND MRS. JOHNSTON Associate Planner Steve Rubin. 6613 VIA SIENA Mr. Rubin explained the need to re- 6 FOOT WALL IN FRONT SETBACK open the public hearing. The item was continued from the December 13, 1983 meeting to allow staff and applicant to meet to discuss alternatives to the proposal. Mr. Rubin explained that the applicants are requesting approval to construct a six (6) foot high wall within the 20 foot front setback area. The applicant's desire is to construct a swimming pool. The applicant's wish to meet the Code requirements as well as their desire for privacy. Mr. Rubin discussed the neighbor's concerns with the visibility. Mr. Rubin advised that the revised application allows enough space from the curb line for the wall to be out of the visibility corridor. Mr. Rubin distributed copies to Commision of a petition received from adjacent and surrounding neighbors expressing their concerns about a precedent being set. 1 1 ` 411/ 4110 Mr. Rubin stated the aesthics concern is a matter for the Homeowner' s Association and not the Commission. Staff's findings show exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. The pool would enhance enjoyment of the' property right of the applicant and decrease the demand for public facilities. Thus . staff 's recommendation is to reopen the public hearing and to adopt Resolution 84-1 (attached) with its conditions. Mrs. Wike asked staff about the shrubbery within the setback. She asked to consider the possibility of lowering the 42" requirement. Mrs. Ortolano inquired about whether the staff would be reviewing the maintenance of the shrubs on a regular basis or by complaint. Mr. Rubin answered on a complaint basis. Dr. Brown stated that the 42' requirement is what is considered a safe visibility height. Charles Johnston, 6613 Via Siena, Rancho Palos Verdes, addressed the Commission and explained his reasons for the request to construct the wall. He wished to build a swimming pool. He then distributed copies to staff and commission of the drawing of the proposed pool. Mrs. Wike addressed the shrubbery concern and asked Mr. Johnston if he would be willing to consider lowering the shrubbery to be certain of clear visibility. Mr. Johnston said the shrubs were existing when they purchased the home, and that they would be willing to trim or replace them as necessary. Mr. Joseph Tomich, 6617 Via Siena, Rancho Palos Verdesaddressed the Commission in opposition to the application. He identified himself as the next door neighbor and asked two questions. What would be done with the pine tree and the wooden fence that separates the two properties? He stated he had a petition on record with Environmental Services Department in opposition to the construction. Mr. Rubin replied that it is not within the City' s jurisdiction to be concerned with the aesthics. It is the jurisdiction of the Art Jury. The fence is not illegal. Mr. Tomich wanted to know if the Art Jury had been advised. Ms. Ortolano asked what he thought should be done. Mr. Tomich answered he would like to see the wooden fence removed and replaced with a block wall. Dr. Brown explained and clarified that aesthics is not Commission' s concern. The Commission' s duty is to see that the application fits within the Code _ and the very nature of a variance application is not precedent setting but is an exception rather than the rule. He explained that Commission must deal with these applications on an individual basis. -2- P.C. 1/10/84 1 • 41, 4110 Mrs. Ortolano moved to adopt Resolution 84-1 approving Variance 94 with conditions required by staff that the shrubs within the front setback be kept trimmed at a maximum height of 42" . Seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. Mrs. Wike moved to amend the motion by lowering the requirement to 30" instead of the 42" . Motion died for lack of second. Mrs. Ortolano's motion passed unanimously. The public hearing was closed by Chairman Brown. Dr. Brown advised that this action can be appealed within 15 days to City Council. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 3 - APPEAL The staff report was MICHAEL J. NOPPER presented by Assistant 4109 SEA HORSE LANE Planner Jonathan Shepherd. Mr. Shepherd noted a correction to be made on Page 2 of the staff report under Issues. It should read "appealing Coastal Permit No. 3" . Mr. Shepherd advised that the Coastal Permit No. 3 was submitted concurrently with Grading Application No. 680 for construction of a single family home. The proposal is in compliance with the Code. The appellants are appealing the Coastal Permit No. 3 under Section 16. 04.105.A. 3 "the development is not compatible with the established physical scale of the area" . - He said the Covenants , Conditions, and Restrictions of the Portuguese Bend* Club limit the height of structures. He also stated that Section 17.02 .030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code allows new structures in RS-5 zones to be built to a maxmimum of 16 feet. The City does not enforce Homeowner' s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Mr. Shepherd listed the three alternatives in the staff report. Staff recommended alternative 1, to affirm the decision of the Hearing' s Officer and dismiss the appeal. Mrs. Ortolano asked if Mr. Shepherd knew the height of the next door structure. He answered no. Mrs. Wike asked if there is any danger of dirt sliding. Mr. Shepherd replied that plans call for a retaining wall and would be checked. Mr. McNulty asked if a View Analysis was necessary. Mr. Shepherd said no. -3- P.C. 1/10/84 411 Page four Statements with the 1/24 and 2/14 corrections: AMrs. Wike asked Mrs. Silva if she was familiar with the home at 4115 Maritime and if her organization approved those plans. Mrs. Wike stated that it seemed that one home had living quarters on a lower level. Mrs. Silva answered no. 1 Mrs. Wike also stated several other addresses of homes that had garages on the ground floor and living quarters on the second floor. The question of concern is whether or not these are considered 2 story homes in this community. 1 , 1111 410 Mr. Von Hagen asked about the kind of materials to be used in the retaining wall. Mr. Shepherd answered that when plans are submitted to Building & Safety, they would then require that information. Dr. Brown asked staff if a public hearing was required. Mr. Shepherd answered that a formal public hearing was. not necessary. Director Hightower explained the difference between a formal public hearing and an informal hearing. No formal notices are required by law to be sent out. The public hearing was opened by Dr. Brown. Mr. Richard D. Farman, 4187 Maritime -Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, spoke in favor of the appeal. He stated reasons for the opposition of the construction of the proposed house. He felt the neighborhood is small, quite, and friendly and they are concerned about the scale of the house. The physical scale of this house does not fit the neighborhood. Mr. Farmen acknowledged that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the Covents, Conditions, and Restrictions, but asked that the Commission consider the physical scale of the proposed house and the dramatic change it would make to the existing neighborhood. Dr. Brown advised that the Commission cannot enforce the CC&R's. Discussion continued between the Commission regarding the physical scale and impact on the environment. Mrs. Silva, 40Maritime Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated she is President of the Homeowner' s Association and that they disapproved of the tentative plans on the basis of the height restriction. She stated that Mr. and Mrs. Nopper attended a meeting on November 7 , 1983 and were informed that the homeowner' s were requesting plans to be submitted. She said they agreed to submit these plans, but none have been submitted thus far. She stated I-hM- trci ati nn Mrs. Wike requested an addition to the January 10, 1984 minutes. 2/0/0 Page 4 should read: "Mrs. Wike asked Mrs. Silva if she was familiar with the home at 4115 Maritime and if her or anization approved those kdiff plans. Mrs. Wike stated that it seemed thatArrome had living quarterstrflild beaeftth=the—garaie. Mrs. Silva answered no. Mrs. Wike also stated hi OA several other addresses of homes - - - - - _ -e glee ac. 1 - / - , lo teet ana wnd L 1 111 aecual ity it was le or 19 feet. Dr. Brown advised that these are not final plans. The Commission was reviewing if . a house could be placed in a particular manner on the property. The plans then go to Building & Safety for plan check. Virginia Bacon, 4111 Sea Horse Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that ,r she concurred with everything that had been said in opposition. She also stated she bought in that area because of the strict height -4- P.C. 1/10/84 .� , . 410 410 restrictions and further, protested the short notice she received of the meeting. Mrs. Ortolano asked staff what notice had been sent. Mr. Shepherd replied that the agenda and staff reports were sent out Friday along with the packets to the Commission. No other formal notification was required. Mr. McNulty discussed Section 16. 104 .10.5 of the Development Code and stated that it was his feeling that this was an appealable issue. Director Hightower explained that the Coastal Specific Plan refers to what is allowed in the Development Code as being appropriate. w_ Dr. Brown addressed what the Development ^_A^ rorml is and stated_._... pile Mrs. Ortolano moved to correc4 cowl cannot adjudicate CC&R' s . 4 ,04,,fgAnoafiN1 tL' the minutes of January 10, 1984. _,F-_1"ed - Page 5 should read: "Mrs. Ortolanc °asked a direct question to Director Hightower for clarification.i on of. Z� g, staff's interpretation of the he exact language used in the Code 'the Ociik development is not compatible with the physical scale of area. ' What was staff'sP y the area. feelingabout the h interpreted �� physical scale and how had staff the language?" a, ,n °A)111i1Thairman Brown moved to affirm th ,t decision of the Hearing' s Officer and dismiss the appeal, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen, and passed unanimously. REPORTS 1 STAFF Director Hightower asked who • would be attending the Leaaue 0:i of California Cities Commission Institute and the University of California seminar. Mr. McNulty and Mrs. Wike- would like to attend both. Mr. McNulty to advise Director Hightower as soon as possible. Mrs. Ortolano would like to attend the University of California seminar. COMMISSION Mr. Von Hagen stated his reasons for the meetings remaining in this building were: (1) it is adjacent to City Hall, (2) it is advantageous to put up displays on a permanent ' basis, and (3) it would be separated from City Council. The consensus of the other Commissioners was to move to Hesse Park on a trial basis. r N ADJOURNMENT A motion was made, seconded an carried to adjourn the meeting at 9 :15 p.m. • 1 '4 ge 5 i ', ,,, '4. - -5- P.C. 1/10/84 4 ,1r L- ;4 ' 110Page 5 Statements with the 1/24 and 2/14 corrections: ttMrs. Ortolano asked a direct question to Director Hightower for clarification of staff' s interpretation of the exact language used in the Code 'the development is not compatible with the physical scale of the area. ' What was staff' s feeling about the physical scale and how has staff interpreted the language?' (2/12) Mrs. Hightower answered that the scale used was the Coastal Zone and the Development Code not the specific neighborhood. The finding made that the application conformed to the Coastal Plan and access is not impeded.