Loading...
PC MINS 19890228i LJ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Chairperson Wike at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. PRESENT: Von Hagen, Wike, McNulty, Ortolano, Connolly (Commissioner Connolly arrived at 6:58 P.M. and Commissioner Von Hagen arrived at 7:25 P.M.) Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Senior Planner Greg Fuz, Associate Planner Laurie Brigham, and Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of January 24, 1989 The minutes of the meeting held January 24, 1989, were deferred until a later date. SPECIAL CALL ITEMS Development Code Amendment No. 29 (fences, walls and hedges) Senior Planner Greg Fuz presented the Staff Report. Mr. Fuz noted that this item was continued from last year, and because of various scheduling problems, it was rescheduled until today. The same Staff Report as provided last year, was once again provided at this time. Mr. Fuz noted that a sketch was available depicting the two concepts being reviewed - the terraced lot scenario and the hillside lot scenario. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 28, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Fuz outlined the City Attorney's comments on this item as follows: 1. In reference to the City's ability to prohibit solid walls and hedges, such regulation would probably be upheld against legal challenge. 2. In reference to the City's ability to retroactively regulate existing walls and hedges, such regulation is permissible provided that the prescribed amortization period is reasonable and commensurate with the investment involved. 3. In reference to a moratorium or interim urgency regulation applicable to fences, walls and hedges, either action can be taken provided that a finding can be made by the City Council that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. 4. In reference to the use of citizen groups, such as neighborhood watch, for code enforcement purposes, the Attorney has no objections provided that the groups' limited their activities to reporting potential violations only. 5. In reference to specific intersection visibility, it is suggested that the Traffic Committee's comments should be considered by his office prior to further discussion of this issue in a public forum. 6. In reference to language proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Fink, there is no clear legal rule prohibiting a case by case fence permit process based upon a balancing of view impacts versus damage caused by lack of a fence. The City Attorney noted, however, that a case by case fence permit review process is less desirable, from the view point of promoting efficient and economical use of staff time and minimizing the potential for litigation. Mr. Fuz concluded that it is Staff's belief that it is necessary to balance the goal of view preservation with the right of a property owner to enclose his/her property for privacy, security, and maintenance purposes; and requested that the Commission provide Staff with additional direction and/or an alternate approach to addressing this matter. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 28, 1989 Page 3 Concerns were raised by Commissioner Ortolano that the proposed ordinance language does not make a distinction between side and rear property lines and just keys in on topographic differences. Staff concurred with this. Mr. Fuz stated that Staff seeks direction from the Commission to see to what extent the Commission is interested in regulating fences, walls, and hedges, and whether or not the Commission believes that an amortization period is justified. Chairperson Wike made the following suggestions for the purpose. -of public reaction: 1. Prohibit walls and fences in front yard setback to obtain a more open appearance. 2. Require fencing/wall permit. 3. More wide use of 90% light and air fencing and walls landscaping to discourage solid wall appearance. 4. Fences/walls especially on street side should not butt -up against the property line but to allow for landscaping. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. Stefano Finazzo, 2175 Rocking Horse Road, -expressed concerns regarding lack of privacy that would result from the proposed ordinance. Richard Notz, 32413 SearaveADrive, expressed concerns about the proposed height of the walls. Mr. Motz requested that the proposed ordinance should read "a line drawn from the highest viewpoint on the upslope property to the roof line of the downslope line". George Fink, 32353 Searaven Drive, urged a case by case consideration of each request and expressed his support for the main concept of the proposed ordinance. Mon Hol I J aal-,O#P 3E48 )IJ*aJ*J3IIQ9 rille rare mtna Rig �610 I I I I Tom Holligsworth, 3648 Vigi ance grive, representing e lera Linda Homeowners Association, agreed that the ordinance, as currently written, is overkill, but supports what the ordinance is trying to accomplish. He also expressed support of the moratorium. Eugene L. Gilster, 26616 Deepbrook Drive 'was not in favor of the amortization concept, and believes that this -ordinance supports the concept of view and not of privacy. Planning Commis n Meeting Minutes 0 February 28, 1989 Page 4 The Commission members expressed the following comments and concerns to Staff: 1. A case by case permit process with appeal to the Commission should be provided. 2. Any rear yard should be addressed. 3. The regulation should only apply prospectively. 4. The relationship between view protection and the proposed regulation needs strengthening. 5. No portion of a wall or hedge should be allowed to interfere with view. Notion was made by Commissioner Connolly and seconded by Commissioner Ortolano, to continue this item to March 14, 1989. Passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 222 27600-27654 Terrasa Assistant Planner Marcia Smith presented the staff report. In the conclusion Ms. Smith stated that Staff recommended that, due to the topography of the lots and the hardship involved from the properties being adjacent to Western Avenue, Staff is able to make the Variance findings to allow the existing fencing height along the rear property lines, with the stipulation that the fencing consist of the same color and material on all properties. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. Interested parties included: Linda Hill, 27600 Tarrasa Drive Erma Smith, 27624 Tarrasa Drive Jane Donelson, 27612 Tarrasa Dr'ive Trinidad Cooper, 27604 Tarrasa Drive Interested parties discussed: concern due to the lack of privacy or security from pedestrians walking on Western Avenue; concern of the traffic noise generated on Western Avenue and stated that the higher fencing would be a factor in reducing the noise impact on each property. They also stated that they would be willing to paint the fences the same color, but that in some cases it would be a financial hardship to rebuild their fences. Chairperson Wike closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 28, 19 -- Page 5 0 0 A motion was made by Commissioner Ortolan and seconded by Commissioner McNulty to continue this item to March 28, 1989 and brought back on the Consent Calendar with a plan agreed to by the applicant and Staff. _ Commissioner Connolly asked for discussion. Commissioner Connolly stated that since the applicants are willing to paint the fences the color directed and agreed to meet with the Director, he saw no point in continuing this item. The question was called again. Commissioners Connolly, Von Hagen and Chairperson Wike dissented. The motion failed. A motion was made by Commissioner Von Hagen and seconded by Commissioner Connolly that the variance be granted with the condition that the fences be painted in the uniform color that is acceptable to the Director and that no other modifications be made to the fences with respect to height. The motion passed with Commissioner McNulty dissenting. B. Extreme Slope No. 10 3424 Seaglen Drive The Staff report was waived. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. Milton G. Canfield, 3424 Seaglen Drive, stated that he concurred with Staff's recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner Von Hagen and seconded by Commissioner McNulty to approve the extreme slope permit - Staff's alternative No. 3 and delete condition No. 2. Commissioners Connolly and Ortolan and Chairperson Wike dissented. The motion failed. A motion was made by Commissioner Ortolan and seconded by Commissioner Connolly to adopt Staff's recommendation with no modifications. Passed unanimously. C. Conditional Use Permit No. 144 Environmental Assessment No. 563 Variance No. 224 Sign Permit No. 437 29035 Western Avenue The Staff report was waived. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. Bob Merriam, Carlson Design, P.O. Box 819, Anaheim, representing Kentucky Fried Chicken, requested the demolition of the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant and construction of a new drive-thru, eat -in and carry out Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant, and to allow a 23% reduction in the joint use parking. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 28, 1989 Page 6 A lengthy discussion ensued by the Commission members regarding parking requirements, and seating area requirements. A consensus was not reached at this time and it was recommended that the item be continued until further discussion has taken place between Staff and the applicant, to mitigate the Commission's concern regarding the shortage of parking. A motion was made by Commissioner Ortolano and seconded by Chairperson Wike to continue this item until April 11, 1989. Motion passed. Commissioners McNulty and Von Hagen dissented. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Exception Permit No. 298 Appeal 6930 Hedgewood Drive Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson presented the staff report. Ms. Olson concluded that it is Staff's belief that the lamps are in excess of the height and quantity limits allowed and represent aggregate lighting in the side yard which is prohibited. A motion was made by Commissioner Connolly and seconded by Commissioner Ortolano to approve Staff's recommendation No. 2, to dismiss the appeal and approve Staff's original decision to remove the light fixture and replace it pending Staff's approval. Motion passed. Commissioners Von Hagen and McNulty dissented. B. Grading No. 1190 29 Bronco that it was Staff's excessive and does natural contours and Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson presented the staff report. Ms. Olson stated belief that the proposed grading is not minimize the disturbance to the extreme slopes. A motion was made by Commissioner Connolly and seconded by Commissioner Ortolano to approve the project as proposed. Motion passed. Chairperson Wike dissented. Planning Commission meeting Minutes February 28, 1989 Page 7 REPORTS A. Staff ADJOURNMENT • Mr. Benard reported that Mr. Curtis Williams has been hired by the City to be the new Planning Administrator. The meeting was duly adjourned at 10:58 P.M. to March 14, 1989, 6:30 P.M.