Loading...
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