Loading...
PC MINS 19760914M I N U T E S Q4) City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 14, 1976 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard by Chairperson Shaw. PRESENT: Blue (arrived at 9:25 p.m.), Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, and Shaw ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Plan- ners Larry Davis and Gary Weber. MINUTES APPROVAL Mrs. Shaw proposed amending the minutes of August 10, on page 5, under Commissioners' Report, by add- ing to the end of the first paragraph "Mrs. Shaw reminded .............. ..... August 11, 1976, and reported on the disposition of two planning matters by the City Council at its previous meeting." On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the minutes of August 10, 1976, and the revisions to said minutes were unanimously approved (Mr. Blue was absent) with the amendment as noted above. The following revisions were proposed for the minutes of August 19, 1976: On page 2, paragraph 6, third line, strike and to obtain the opinion of the City Attorney concerning the approval of three transmit- ting poles,....." Also on page 6, under Commissioners' Report, change the date from September 17 to September 7. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the minutes of August 19, 1976, were unanimously approved (Mr. Blue was absent) with the above amendments. The Commission requested that the minutes from the joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 1976, be changed to reflect that Mr. Blue was absent. COMMUNICATION Mr. William Hauf, 7449 Via Lorado, FROM AUDIENCE expressed concern about the status of the Grading Ordinance revisions, as he has had a project pending for about nine months, awaiting these revisions. Director Hightower said the staff would have a draft to the Commission by the following meeting, and the Commission explained to Mr. Hauf that they would schedule a workshop meeting as soon as they receive the draft. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #14 Mrs. Shaw explained that this was a TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32614 continued public hearing from the Northwest corner Crenshaw & Crest meetings of July 13 and July 27, Applicant: Great American Land 1976. & Development Mr. Davis gave the staff report, ex- plaining that at the first meeting, many concerns were expressed, including the close proximity of the homes to neighboring structures and view obstruction. He said at the second meeting, the applicant brought in a concept plan and that the consensus of the Commission was to approve this plan with the removal of one unit, elimination of the secondary loop street, and building heights not ex- ceeding 16 feet above a grade plane located 15 feet from the subject property line. He said the applicant has revised the tentative tract map to conform with the concept plan and if approved, the City Council gives final approval of the tentative tract map, but the conditional use permit must be granted by the Planning Commission. He explained two courses of action that the Commission may take, either formally or i informally approving a conditional use permit!&He said Staff recom- mendation was to informally approve the conditional use permit, because if the City Council makes changes to the tentative tract map, this could also require changes in the conditional use permit. Paul Thoryk, architect, showed elevations for some of the proposed homes and said that none of the roof lines exceed the 16 -foot height limit, adding that it was necessary for them to come up with some different designs in order to accomplish this. Nick Harrison, of E. L. Pearson, answered questions related to grading and said the common open space area has been increased from 40 to 42 percent. Bill Schworer, Great American Land and Development Company, explained that a plan for tennis court lighting has not been prepared because they wish to do a complete study on lighting before preparing or deciding on a particular plan and, in fact, at this point, are -not sure they will have lighting for the court. It was pointed out that one of the conditions in the resolution required Planning Commission review and approval of the tennis court lighting plan. Wallace Williams, 5605 Sunmist, asked if anyone will be reviewing the traffic pattern, and Mr. Davis replied that the Traffic Committee will be reviewing the intersection of Crenshaw and Crest, studying existing and future problems which may warrant signalization. Mr. Davis added that as far as the project's entrance location, it seemed to be the best solution. As there were no other speakers, Mrs. Shaw closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed approving the conditional use permit in concept, and Mr. McTaggart suggested conditionally approving it. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 14 subject to the condition that the City Council makes no substantial alterations to the tentative tract map and that no appeals are received on either the permit or the map. During Commission discussion it was decided to make this condition part of Exhibit "A", and the motion and the second were withdrawn. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unani- mously carried, amending Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 76-9 P.C. by adding the following condition: 119. Approval of this conditional use permit is subject to the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 32614 by the City Council without substantial changes or modifications hereto." Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unani- mously carried, to adopt Resolution No. 76-9 P.C., approving Conditional Use Permit No. 14 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", as amended. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Shaw, and unanimously carried, to amend Exhibit "A", attached to the memorandum to the City Council regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 32614 as follows: Page 1, item 2, paragraph 4, changed to read "A grading plan as required by Chapter 6, Part 6, of the City's ............" Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unani- mously carried, to forward the report (included in the Commissioners' agenda packets tonight) recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 32614 sub3ect to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", as amended, with the following change to the memorandum: Paragraph 1, sentence 2, delete "informal" -- sentence should read "The Commission has granted approval of ..............." CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #16 Mrs. Shaw opened the public hearing TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32744 on this item, which had been con - Porto Verde Apartments, Beachview tinued from the meetings of July 27 & Nantasket Drives and August 10, 1976, at the appli- Applicant: Porto Verde Associates/ cant's request. E. L. Pearson 9/14/76 P.C. -2- Director Hightower g e the staff report explain*g that this request was for the condominium conversion of an existing 216 apartment unit complex, plus the addition of 3.31 acres proposed to contain a two-level garage and recreational area, vacating the existing alley. She briefly described the existing complex as a 114 -unit adult two-bedroom section with subterranean parking and said the older section contained 102 family units with semi -subterranean parking, adding that all have exterior access. She said staff was concerned about the units being stacked, three stories, and wondered if these units were suitable for condominiums. She said the City Attorney has reviewed the CC&Rs and found them to be satisfactory with some revisions. She told the Commission they may approve even if the project does not meet all of the requirements, as long as it does meet the intent. She said major considerations under the code were parking, sound measurements, private open space and storage space; and that major issues regarding the General Plan were the type of housing and type of ownership. She said the General Plan discourages condominium conversions because they further limit the economic range of housing in the city. Don Davis, of E. L. Pearson, 1555 Redondo Beach Boulevard, Gardena, re- viewed the history of the area prior to city incorporation and said this development was the first of what was to be several apartment complexes in the area according to the County Master Plan. He explained that they have a high turnover as a rental development due to the isolation of the project and the signing restrictions in the city. He explained that the proposed new 143 parking spaces provide more than 2-1 parking, that 29 on-site quest parking spaces will be pro- vided, individual storage closets of five feet square or more were pro- posed, and he felt the on-site recreational facilities and landscaping would enhance the entire area. He pointed out that the development would be 1/4 recreational and 3/4 dwelling units. He felt that condominiums were ideal as single person households, and that there are many people who don't want or need a large area, but do want the benefits of ownership. He referred to the applicant's report, after page 24, where they tried to illustrate in graphic form those items which do comply, those items which will comply, and those items which do not comply. The Commission was particularly concerned with the plumbing and noise transmission and felt these may be two of the most important issues. Mr. Blue arrived at this point in the meeting, being 9:25 p.m. The Commission questioned the applicant on the plumbing system, how the percentage of vacancies compares with other rentals in the area, the square footage of the units, and the opinion was expressed that the con- cept of a condominium in this city was that it be, in as many ways as possible, comparable to a single family home. At 9:45 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:53 p.m. with the same members present. As there were no further speakers, Mrs. Shaw closed the public hearing, reserving the right to re -open the hearing at a later time. The con- sensus of the Commission after discussion was that although they had some serious reservations about this project, they were not willing to close the door on it at this point, and wanted to do a thorough inspection and obtain some concrete data regarding existing conditions and particularly they wanted to be sure that the sound requirements have been met. Concern was again expressed about the plumbing and water systems. They requested that Staff prepare its recommendations for the Commission's review at its next meeting. Director Hightower did not feel there would be diffi- culty in preparing this by the next meeting, as long as the Commission was not asking for specific recommendations as they might find in a resolution. On motion by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, Conditional Use Permit No. 16 and Tentative Tract No. 32744 was tabled until such a time as staff could prepare the necessary mater- ials and place this item back on the agenda. 9/14/76 P.C. -3- PERM # q 17 Mr. Weber 0e the staff report, ex - CONDITIONAL USE P , VARIANCE #8 plaining that at the public hearing GRADING #83 of August 10, the Commission gave 5721 West Crestridge tentative approval on the parking Applicant: Congregation Ner Tamid variance and the building height variance, but requested revision be made on the front landscaping/parking variance and the building setback variance, and that public hearing had been continued to this meeting. Mr. Weber said revised plans have been submitted and that the classroom/administration building has been re- located five feet from the east property line. He said the plans also show an increased front landscaped area and an increase in the size of the parking stalls. Staff recommendation is that these revisions be approved, that the grading be approved and that a railing be required on all retaining walls which exceed thirty inches. Mrs. Shaw re -opened the public hearing. Seymour Cagen, appearing on behalf of the Congregation, had some questions regarding the wording of the resolution and conditions, which were an- swered to his satisfaction by Staff and the Commission. As there were no additional speakers, Mrs. Shaw closed the public hearing. In discussing the findings which the Commission is required to establish in granting a variance, the Commission determined the following: Re Finding 6.a. (as shown in the draft resolution), the Commission felt the intended use was unique in the area, there are no established development patterns existing within the area, and that the County's 25 -foot access easement does not allow for the total use of the subject property. Specifically, on the parking variance, the intended activities of the various buildings will not be occurring at the same time and due to the joint parking agreements with neighboring facilities. Specifically, on the front setback parking and landscaping, because of the loss of uses within the 25 -foot access easement on the eastern property line and the orientation of adjacent residential uses. Specifically, on the height variance, the area exceeding the limit is minor in scope and is not violating the spirit of the ordinance. Specifically, on the building setback variance, the 25 -foot access easement does not allow for full usage on the western portion of the property. Re Finding 6.b., the Commission felt the existence of the 25 -foot access easement does not allow for full usage of the property which is possessed by most other properties. Re Finding 6.c., the Commission felt with the development patterns within the area, the facility's orientation to existing resi- dences to the south, and location within an institutional district, the granting of these variances would not be detri- mental. Re Finding 6.d., they felt the intended use is not contrary to the General Plan. The Commission requested that Staff insert the above findings into the resolution in proper form, changing the wording if necessary, to express the intent of the Commission; said resolution in its final form to be reviewed by the Chairperson. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried, to adopt Resolution No. 76-10 P.C., granting Conditional Use Permit No. 17 and Variance No. 8 for the construction of a religious facility. 9/14/76 P.C. -4- Mr. McTaggart propost) a motion, seconded by mroolue, and unanimously carried, to approve Grading Application No. 83, for the religious facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #18 28503 Highridge Road Applicant: Don C. Wallace be no problems with the lease and also that he had made some Mrs. Shaw explained that the public hearing on this item had been closed at the meeting of August 10, and Mr. Weber explained that the City Attorney indicated that he felt there would as written between Mr. Wallace and Motorola, changes to the proposed resolution. After a brief discussion, Mr. McTaggart moved to adopt Resolution No. 76-11 P.C. (as rewritten by the City Attorney) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 18, subject to the conditions as listed in Exhibit "A". This motion was seconded by Mr. Blue and carried with Mr. Rosenberg dissenting. SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT #7 Mr. Rosenberg moved to approve the 5229 Silver Arrow Drive motion submitted by staff (at the Applicant: James Mitchell request of the Commission at its last meeting) approving Special Animal Permit No. 7, subject to certain conditions and with the findings as listed in the Staff memorandum. This motion was seconded by Mr. McTaggart and carried with Mrs. Shaw dissenting and Mr. Blue abstaining. SIGN PERMIT #1 Director Hightower explained that 28311 Ridgehaven Drive the applicant was requesting, for Applicant: Dayton Realty two temporary real estate advertis- ing signs, a time extension until all of the units are sold. Staff recommendation is to approve the time extension, until March 9, -1-91-6-.,/1'7 On motion by Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the request for a time extension of Sign Permit No. 1 was granted until March 9, 1-9-7-6-, with the dissenting vote from Mr. Rosenberg. /1'77 Since the applicant for agenda item no. 6. a. was not present, the Commission changed the order of the agenda to take item no. 6. b first. PARCEL MAP NO. 6879 Mr. Weber said that the request was 10, 12, and 14 Diamonte Lane for the realignment of property Applicants: O. Merlene Kovacs lines and described the location and Lowell & Maxine Black size, etc. of subject lots, pointing Melvin & Judith Rowan out that no new lots would be generated and no improvements were requested by the applicants, and explaining that the purpose was to straighten the lot lines. He further explained that, if approved, each of the lots would meet minimum lot size requirements. Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions. Two of the applicants, Mr. Rowan and Mrs. Kovacs, were present and ex- plained that at present, the applicants were maintaining each other's properties. Both applicants expressed concern over the condition staff has recommended in Exhibit "A" that the discrepancy on the County maps be resolved prior to approval of the final map. The Commission discussed removing this condition from the Exhibit, and Mr. Rosenberg moved that Resolution No. 76-12 P.C. be adopted, approving Parcel Map No. 6879, granting the lot line adjustments subject to con- dition no. 1, listed in Exhibit "A". This motion was seconded by Mr. Blue and was unanimously approved. On motion by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried, staff was directed to work with the applicable County agencies to resolve this discrepancy as indicated by parcel map. RECESS At 11:40 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 11:44 p.m. with the same members present. 9/14/76 P.C. -5- GRADING #80 30176 Rhone Applicant: Rogelio Herrero and that considering the steepness the grading of the 775 cubic yards tion is for approval. Mr. I Weber ocribed the project and the nature of the lot and said that the applicant has attempted to work with the slopes, has revised the plan to minimize view obstruction, of the lot and the access problems, is not excessive. Staff recommenda- The Commission discussed the problems the applicant has had with such a difficult lot, particularly with such a large house as is proposed, and felt that the applicant made as many revisions to the plan as is possible. On motion by Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 80 was approved based on the applicant's attempt to work with the slope and the submission of a design which minimizes view obstruction. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower said that the City Council would like a status report from the Commission, updating staff priorities, with the signature of the chairperson. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart reported on the City Council meeting which he attended on September 7, explaining that he was questioned as to the Commission status of the tree trimming and grading ordinances. Regarding the antenna ordinance, Mr. McTaggart said that this item may come back to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Shaw also noted that the City Council at its last meeting waived the appeal fee for the Reagan's who wished to appeal the decision of Minor Exception Permit No. 6. Director Hightower explained that the Council also made "construction on Sundays" a priority item, as well as setting up criteria for appeal fees, whether some appeals are automatically heard, etc. The Commission discussed whether they should schedule a work session or a public hearing for the proposed grading ordinance revisions. on motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried, the Commission directed that public hearing be scheduled for the grading ordinance at the earliest possible date, allowing enough time forlegal notice. Mr. McTaggart wondered about amending the code'Vequiringa—pa-r-t-i:-cu-1-ar -t-y-pe—o-f- pipes to be used in the City, and also amending the parking ordinance to allow for so many compact cars and to encourage the use of such. ADJOURNMENT 9/14/76 P.C. -6- At 12:13 a.m., it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting to September 28, 1976.