PC MINS 19841127MINUTES
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
November 27, 1984
7:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Harvey Brown at
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, School District Community Room.
PRESENT: BROWN, MCNULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE
Also present were Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Phyllis
Parker and Secretary Ann Brenesell.
COMMUNICATIONS
Code Requirements for sewers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
were moved to the end of the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
Commission received letters
from the Fallgrens, Tim
Burrell, a Grading Plan for
Lot 11 and copy of Building
(05)
By Commission consenus, the
minutes of November 13, 1984
MEP - 159 Appeal
6616 Via Siena The staff report was presented
by Associate Planner Steve Rubin
which recommended denial of
MEP 159 -Appeal. He said the request was for a four foot reduction in the front
yard setback. He briefly outlined the neighbors' concerns: 1) the potential
view impacts from the Phillips and Fallgren residents and 2) the issue of
potential geologic hazard relative to the sewer system versus the present
septic system on the Zaich property.
A copy of the Building Code Requirements relating to Sewers was distributed
to Commission members and discussed. Concern centered around the adequacy
of a public sewer system versus a private system and the potential problems
associate with both.
The letter submitted by Mr. Fallgren was outlined and further discussed.
Staff stated if the application was approved that it was possible to require
further geologic analysis if necessary as determined by the City geologist and
Building Official in the plan check stage.
Staff also explained the building height measurement procedure. The average
elevation of front property line is measured up to 16 feet. This particular
application, it was explained, measures 11 feet at the front property
line, and approximately 28 feet in overall height at the rear; and that
30 feet maximum is allowed without a variance.
Staff's denial was based on the issue of reduced setback and the City's policy
of preserving maximum setbacks for direct access garages because of safety.
Thus staff recommended moving the garage back four feet as a viable solution.
Minutes
November 27, 1984
Page Two
Planning Commission options were as follows: (1) to approve the appeal
thereby overturning staff's denial, (2) to deny the appeal upholding staff's
denial and (3) to direct applicant to redesign the project to conform to
staff's recommended alternative.
Commission discussion centered on the City's right to condition approval
by enforcing the necessary Plumbing Code requirements; qualification of what
constitutes view impairment, the capacity of the private sewer vs gravity feed
system, and that no documentation existed to support the inference of a health
or safety problem relating to the existing private sewer system on the subject
property.
Mr. Dan Zaich, 6616 Via Siena, applicant stated his desire for approval of
the project and outlined the circumstances over the past six months relative
to applying for the MEP. Addressing the issue of geology, he stated there
have been no indications of shifting of walls or foundation and that
approximately three years ago an extensive geologic and soils report was
done and no hazards were indicated. Relative to the sewage issue, he said
there have been no problems thus far, and he would not create a situation to
increase problems. He believed the project was reasonable and it would
enhance property values. He said once the project has been approved he
would obtain approval from the Art Jury. When asked if he would have any
objection to hooking up to the sewer system if that were a condition, Mr.
Zaich iterated no he wouldn't object, but that there had been no evidence
of any geologic hazard or seepage and that he didn't believe gravity feed was
possible so he did not agree that it was necessary.
A Commission member talked about self-imposed hardship.
Responding to self-imposed hardship,Mr. Zaich stated that he tried to follow
the rules and limitations and was told six months ago, that the MEP process
was simple and uncomplicated but that as time went on, it had become a hardship.
His intention was to use the MEP procedure as a reasonable alternative in
an attempt to protect his neighbor's view.
The Chairman reiterated that the project could have been built without
this procedure by simply moving the garage back four feet thus complying
to the Code requirements. He stated that view impairment was not an issue by code
standards nor was the sewer an issue. The issue was placement of the garage
at a certain distance relative to safety.
Sara Fallgren, 6620 Via Siena, opposing approval of the MEP and stated her
desire for the Zaich's to hook up to the sewer stating reasons of ground
water seepage and to prevent future potential problems related to such. She also
stated concern over loss of their view of the street scene.
Mr. Wendell Phillips, 6612 Via Siena, supported approval of the application and
was concerned with his view and possible obstruction. He stated it was to his
advantage to grant the Minor Exception Permit.
Supporting approval of the application, comments were as follows:
-With the encroachment, the safety factor is not significantly impaired
-The request is simply a minor exception and not a major code issue.
Minutes
November 27, 1984
Page Three
In opposition to granting the MEP, coments related to:
-Concern of future connection to the sewer system
-The safety issue and the fact that the applicant can achieve his desire
and comply with Code without the exception permit for the garage.
Mr. Von Hagen moved to grant the appeal thereby overturning staff's denial
of MEP 159 with the following conditions: (1) the adequacy of sewers to be
determined prior to construction, (2) submittal of structural drawings showing
a maximum 30' overall height and (3) installation of a roll -up garage door
and automatic door opener; seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed by majority
vote with Dr. Brown and Mr. McNulty in opposition.
Variance 111
30438 Palos Verdes Drive East Mr. McNulty moved to open and
continue the public hearing until
the next available Planning
Commission meeting after the submission of appropriate geological information
requested by staff; seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously.
Staff was instructed to notify Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Geise, 30530 Palos Verdes
Drive East of the rescheduled meeting time for this item as they were unable
to speak this evening.
Variance No. 112
Lewis
6424 Ocean Terrace Mr. McNulty moved to open and
continue the public hearing to
December 11, 1984 as requested by
the applicant; seconded by Dr. Brown and passed unanimously.
CUP No. 95
EA No. 456
1903 Summerland Drive The staff report was presented
by Associate Planner Steve Rubin
which recommended approving
CUP 95 and the Draft Negative Declaration for EA 456; subject to conditions
contained in Exhibit A.
A color brochure showing the proposed modular building was passed around for
Commission review.
Staff's recommendation included conditioning the approval around the
applicant's relicensing from the State Department of Social Services for expanding
the number of students and that said application met the intent of the City's
General Plan and Development Code.
Staff stated that there were no written objections received and the one
verbal concern relative to use of the private road easement was addressed
with the submittal of written verification of same.
Dr. Brown opened the public hearing.
5
Minutes
November 27, 1984
Page Four
Commission discussion centered on changing the following conditions to
Exhibit A as follows:
For the purpose of allowing the applicant more flexibility, Condition #1
was changed to read ..."not to exceed 48 students..." and Condition #3
was changed to read..."to no more than 80..."
So that the temporary modular building could not be moved on the property,
Condition #7 was changed to read ..."at the approved site location..."
The only speaker to address the item was Carrie Concha, applicant, who
agreed with the concerns and changes recommended by the Commission.
Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and
passed.
Dr. Brown moved to adopted Resolution P.C. No. 84-31 approving CUP 95 and
the draft Negative Declaration for EA 456 subject to the conditions as
modified in Exhibit A; seconded by Mr. VonHagen and passed unanimously.
Conditional Use Permit No. 33
Revision "G" &
Grading Application #771
recommended approval of the CUP
addressed in the staff report:
and the differences between the
and how this would be handled.
Assistant Planner Phyllis
Parker presented the
staff report which
for Lot 11. The following concerns were
the I -,:l slope along the northwest side yard;
lower floor elevation and rear yard elevations
Discussion ensued regarding proposed grading versus what had been originally
approved, and the approved maximum ridgeline for Lot 11. Staff affirmed that
the ridgeline was not changing only the pad grading.
Tim Burrell, Burrell Limited, 4038 Exultant Drive, applicant discussed two (2)
proposed alternatives for the northwest side yard on Lot 11. One alternative
was a l -1,:l, un -retained slope. The second alternative was to use a 3'
retaining wall, which would reduce the steepness of the slope to 3:1.
He stated the advantage of a slope with no retaining wall was to give a more
"open" effect versus the retaining wall and that people would feel more
comfortable in "using" the entire side yard space than with the 3' retaining
wall.
Following lengthy Commission discussion on the alternatives, Dr. Brown moved
to approve minor revision "G", CUP 33 and Grading 771 for Lot 11, tract 32110
as revised which would include a revision to the building elevations
reflecting a raised foundation at the rear of the house and a Ik:l slope
along the northwestern side yard; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed
unanimously.
Minutes
November 13, 1984 Two corrections were made to
the minutes as follows:
On Page 2 Mrs. Ortolano's name was added to "a concern by Mrs. Ortolano was....
Minutes
November 27, 1984
Page Five
and also on page 2, a question arose by Mrs. Wike regarding .....
The minutes were approved as amended by a unanimous vote.
Commission Mrs. Wihe asked that the
Traffic Committee purU3S the
possibility of the curve
on Via Siena near MiraleSte drive for appropriate no parking signage.
Dr. Brown will follow up at the Mayor's meeting and instructed staff to
follow up with written communication to City Council.
None
ADJOURNMENT By 0Otl0n and unanimous
vote, the meeting s
adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
to December 5, 1984^ work