Loading...
PC MINS 19840124N 0 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 24, 1984 The Meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambera,'.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 Dino Putrino. COMMUNICATIONS None I CONSENT CALENDAR Mrs. Ortolano moved to correct the minutes of January 10, 1984. Page 5 should read: "Mrs. 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 had staff interpreted thea ua• g:e 701 211 MrV—or-"t"o*i'an*o'*-*aho"-'reques ed that Page Nsnould read: "Chairman Brown moved to affirm the findings and the decision of the Hearing's Officer and dismiss the appeal..." Mrs. Wike requested an addition to the January 10, 1984 minutes. Page 4 should read: "Mrs. Wike asked Mrs. Silva if she was familiar with the home at 4115 Maritime and if her organization approved those pla stated that it seemed thata ome had living quarters ,,,as,,A!Wi A Me ge. Mrs. Silva Mrs. Wike also stated several other addresses of homes that 4 -hese k-ivda--e-f 4A-4.-4 kA4-#-0V t On Page 4, Mrs. Silva's address should be corrected to read: 4110. STREET VACATIONS The staff report was presented by V" CAYMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Associate Planner Steve Rubin. e4 VACATE STREETS, TRACT 38848 Mr. Rubin stated that the applicant's "THE ISLAND VIEW" original request came before the Planning Commission in the Spring of 1983 when the project was going through its tentative hearing. At that meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the item with the intention of it going before City Council to discuss several important issues. In March 1983, there was a joint study session. Mr. Rubin referred to letters from neighbors expressing their concerns relative to gated communities. Mr. Rubin said the Traffic Committee had met on this item and based on new access plans, the Committee approved the request. The issues of the joint session were discussed. Mr. Rubin referred to numbers 1, 3, and 5 of the staff,report. Mr. Rubin stated that with 24-hour access to the public, issue #1 was satisfied. Regarding issue #3, Mr. Rubin said maintenance costs would be borne by the Homeowner's Association and the CC&R's would be amended to reflect the responsibilities of the homeowners. On issue #5, Mr. Rubin stated the City's General Plan sets a policy for private streets. Mr. Rubin stated this proposal met the appropriate criteria and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to hold a public hearing to vacate the streets with the responsibility of maintenance to the Homeowner's Association with the ability to levy taxes if necessary. Mrs. Wike asked why on February 22, 1983 there was a recommendation to deny private streets and now there was a recommendation for approval of streets. She asked for clarification of the difference in the two recommendations. Mr. Rubin explained the primary change was to allow 24-hour community access. He felt that was the most crucial concern of the City. Mrs. Wike asked about the legality and responsibility when there was a problem such as drainage or an accident, etc. Mr. Rubin replied he was not certain if any responsibility might be the city's in the case of an accident. He stated the streets were designed to City standards. Director Hightower stated that the City Attorney would have to advise Council relative to this matter. Mr. Von Hagen asked about curbs and maintenance costs. He asked by what standards would the construction of these streets be governed? Would the criteria be as stringent? He asked for clarification of standards. Mr. Rubin commented on the rounded curbs and stated that the plans are checked for width and construction requirements by Public Works. The streets were designed to standards set by the City. Mrs. Ortolano addressed her concerns relative to community access and referred to the Negative Declaration (enclosed in the staff report), 34d, "alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods". She stated that card gates do not allow 24- hour public access. Mr. Rubin answered that the City Council could make a condition requiring the 24-hour public access. Mrs. Ortolano then addressed concerns about the amended CC&R's not being enforced and if it would be the responsibility of the City to enforce them. Mr. Rubin answered that it would require City enforcement. -2- 1/24/84 ,- Dr. Brown referred to the original request for private streets and stated it should be - - understood -that -this is -the applicant's fourth request and not a second request. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing. -Don Owen, Cayman Development Company, 608 Silver Spur, Suite 830, Rancho Palos Verdes replied to Dr. Brown's statement. Mr. Owen stated that on February 1983, the subject was never discussed. The tract was not recorded at the time of the first request. The issue was deferred since that time. Mr. Owen referred to a potential gate at Crest and that the ulitmate decision was that of the Homeowner's Association. Mrs. Ortolano asked if this would be an advertising program. Mr. Owen answered it would be a possibility. Mr. Von Hagen asked about speed bumps and maintenance of the roads. Mr. Owen discussed elongated speed bumps, safety factors, and maintenance issues. Mr. Owen stated that City Council would have power to enforce the requirements and that was the reason for staff's recommendation. Mrs. Wike raised questions about the possibility of clogged drains causing erosion on the hillside. She asked if the City would inspect these culverts regularly. DirectorHightower\explained that street drains would be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association and that concrete swales would be inspected only on a complaint basis. Large storm drains are maintained by Flood Control District. Mr. Von Hagen stated that the idea was againd the General Plan policy which has historically been not to promote gated communities within the City. Mr. Von Hagen was not convinced of cost savings and benefits to the City. He felt litigation down the road could be meaningful and severe. Chairman Brown also felt liability and public access were issues as well as the philosophy of the City, which is critical. Mrs. Ortolano moved to recommend to City Council to deny the applicant's request for street vacations. It was seconded by Mrs. Wike and motion passed unanimously. GRADING NO. 701 DAVID BREIHOLZ & ASSOCIATES PETER ROTH - OWNER 6615 EL RODEO ROAD EXCEED SIDE YARD RETAINING WALL HEIGHT the maximum height allowed (maximum The reason for the request is so the The staff report was presented by Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. Mr. Putrino stated the applicant's request is to construct a retaining wall 89 feet in length in the east side yard area, that would exceed is 3 1/2 feet, Section 17.050.070). applicant can park a boat/trailer -3- 1/24/84 and create additional pad yard area for the use of a spa and patio in the side yard. Staff is of the opinion the creation of an area to be used for storage and screening from public view of a boat/trailer is justifiable but not for a spa. Staff recommended alternative #3 listed in the staff report to allow a retaining wall in the proposed location at a maximum of 5 1/2 feet (3 1/2 feet in front yard setback), and a length of 51 feet beginning from the front property line, to allow for storage and screening of a boat/trailer. In addition, require increased landscaping in the front yard setback. Mrs. Ortolano asked for clarification of what the alternatives were. What does modified mean in the alternatives listed. Assistant Planner Putrino explained the alternatives and mentioned that the applicant is aware of the plans being modified. The applicant's original plan required a variance. Mr. Putrino said that Mr. Roth submitted landscape plans for the whole property. Mr. David Breiholz, 1842 Lomita Boulevard, Lomita stated that his office was asked by Mr. Roth to provide the engineering design for the retaining wall to conform with the landscape plan. The land- scape plan was distributed to the Planning -Commission and staff. Chairman Brown asked Assistant Planner Putrino if the landscape plan was important and relative to the issue.i Thetrequest is for exception to Code relative to wall height. Mr.__Pu_trino answered no, this was a Code issue. Mr. Breiholz requested approval as submitted. He said the work would be done to conform with the landscaping already planned. Mr. Breiholz itemized the benefits he felt for granting approval for the application as submitted. The privacy issue was addressed and he said were there a 6' wall permitted per code there would be no impact on the view. He mentioned the approval of the landscape and wall plans by the neighbors. He discussed the logic of having the spa close to utilizle$ and handy to the side door because it affords maximum open space for recreation as well as a flat level patio area that stablizes the slope. Director Hightower explained that Planning Commission could not approve the request as originally submitted without a variance application. Chairman Brown explained that if the applicant wished the Planning Commission to lookat the modified plan, it could proceed. Chairman Brown explained the alternatives to Mr. Roth. Mr. Peter Roth, 6615 E1 Rodeo, Rancho Palos Verdes stated his appreciation to staff and the Commission for looking at what he was— trying to do. - -4- 1/24/84 Chairman Brown asked if he understood what staff was saying about placing the spa in another portion of the yard. Mr. Roth replied he understood that. Mr. Roth explained that the utilities of the house are on the east side; minimizing his expenses. He can put the necessary electric/ gas/water into slab and cap them off. The house is designed with the door on the east which allows access into the garage where there is a bathroom. The slope, as existing, is significantly steeper than new codes. They intend to stablize with the wall and to place bushes on the rear side of the wall for windbreak and privacy. This optimizes this location for a spa. 6 1/2 feet is far more expensive than a 5 1/2 foot wall but in this case it is cost effective. Mr. McNulty moved to approve Grading Application No. 701 as modified. It was seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. Chairman spoke against this motion. Dr. Brown said the accessory structure and privacy are separate. Mrs. Ortolano stated that they look at the uniqueness of this property. The vote was four ayes and one nay. Motion passed. Chairman Brown noted that the issue can be appealed to the City Council within 15 days. GRADING PERMIT NO. 706 The staff report was presented by FAFCO, INC. Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. NARIAN & RITA BHATIA He stated the applicant is 30623 RUE LA PIERRE requesting to construct support footings for a swimming pool solar heating system on a slope which exceeds a 35% slope. Staff is of the opinion that the solar panels can be placed in other areas of the rear yard or on the roof of the house where Code compliance can be achieved. Staff recommended denial of Grading Application No. 706. Mrs. Wike asked why the applicant needed to present this to the Commission relative to Code 17.50.040.D. Assistant Planner Putrino stated that Section 17.50.040..D refers to grading of footings that do not require grading approval but the location of the structure is on a slope greater than 35%. This site is greater than 35% and that is the issue. Mrs. Ortolano asked if the Commission had the authority to deal with placement of solar panels relative to the chain link fence and concrete Swale. Chairman Brown answered yes and that the Commission could stipulate conditions that are reasonable. Jim Mitchell, FAFCO, INC., 18103 Skypark South, Irvine, spoke as the representative of the manufacturer and installer. He stated that he -5- was present simply to answer any questions. Mr. Mitchell stated -lois request is one alternative in-.,hllside_installation. He said most panels are placed on the roof. He said the plan is feasible as the roof is presently designed. Discussion continued relative to the servicing and access of the panels. Motion is made by Mrs. Wike to approve the request for solar panels and seconded by Mrs. Ortolano. Dr. Brown opposed the motion because a reasonable alternative existed. He favored adhering to the Code. Mrs. Ortolano expressed desire for the Commission to look at solar panels and new technology. Discussion continued on solar energy issues. Chairman Brown reminded the Commission that the request was to build a structure on a slope greater than 35%. The motion failed on a two -three vote. Mr. McNulty moved to deny Grading Application #706, seconded by Dr. Brown. Motion passed, 3 to 2. Chairman Brown advised that this issue is appealable to the City Council within 15 days. PUBLIC HEARING The staff report was presented by REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT Associate Planner Steve Rubin. 40640, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Tentative Tract Map 40640 and NO. 68, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 6 Conditional Use Permit No. 68 were REVISION TO APPROVED GRADING approved by the Planning Commision PLAN in November 1981. The City Council approved Tentative Tract 40640 in December 1981. Both items have been extended and are due to expire in June 1984. The proposed revision would alter the route of access to Lots 24 and 25. As originally approved, Lot 24 took access with a steep curving drive- way which crossed Lot 25. The proposed revision would access Lot 25 from a relatively'fla_t straight driveway crossing Lot 24. This reduced the total amount of'cut and exportation of earth.__The pad elevations are altered slightly. This revision would have no impact on views. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the primary reason for the change is to modify the access and dramatically reduce grading. He said the modification will somewhat reduce the buildable area on Lot 24. 0-A Mr. McNulty moved to adopt Resolution-�87 approving the revision to the approved Grading Plan for Tentative Tract 40640, Conditional Use Permit 68 and Coastal Permit No. 6 amending Condition No. 20,6,( -6- 1/24/84 cl-�7 -;1 0 seconded by Mr. Von Hagen, and passed unanimously. ul-3063sa STAFF Director Hightower advised that the City Council approved attendance at the Institute and seminar for the Planning Commission. Director Hightower stated that Council had referred Second Units back to the Planning Commission with the direction to study other city's ordinances and to monitor state legislation in this area for a period of time and then recommend an ordinance back to the Council COMMISSION Mrs. Ortolano requested a study of solar panels. She suggested the Planning Commission to study this and make recommendations to the City Council. Mrs. Ortolano asked Dr. Brown to discuss this matter with the Mayor at his monthly meeting. A lenghty discussion continued relative to the uni ue problems of solar panels, their placement, the idea of solar panels_not being called structures, the issue of panels on slopes greater than 35%, etc. ADJOURNMENT Motion made, seconded and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. I