Loading...
PC MINS 197611230 (04) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting November 23, 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, Hughes, McTaggart, Shaw ABSENT: Rosenberg Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Plan- ner Gary Weber. MINUTES APPROVAL Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion which was seconded by Mr. Blue to approve the minutes of November 9 as submitted. As there was disagreement over the wording of the third paragraph on page three, the motion and second were withdrawn and this item continued until later in the meeting. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the work session minutes of November 11, 1976, were approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 19 The public hearing was opened, and TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32677 Mr. Weber gave the background of the Highridge, south of Hawthorne Blvd. request, describing the proposal, the Applicant: Cayman Development Co. location, and the proposed grading, pointing out the differences between the proposal and the Code -established criteria. He suggested the Commission first concentrate on the grading. He said the Fire Department feels one access is usually not enough, and Staff recommends an additional one. Staff proposes that the major issues be discussed tonight and the item be continued to the next meeting, at which time Staff will present specific recommendations. Speaking in favor were Jack Stone, president and representative of the Pea- cock Ridge Homeowners' Association, 5987 Peacock Ridge Road, and Gus Bartos, homeowner at same address. They felt the proposed grading would reduce the impact on views, that there was not a natural grade existing now, and that especially with landscaping, etc., the project would be a definite improve- ment over what now exists. Glen Shaffer, Cayman Development Company, 608 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, showed cross section view analyses and drawings, pointing out the differences between the proposed and allowable. He further explained that one-story dwelling units require more grading and leave less open space than two-story dwellings. He showed an aerial photo and explained that by grading as proposed, with the structures moved closer to the apartments, they were offering more view to those living in the surrounding area; and he felt the Code did not consider conditions of this type. Don Owen, also of Cayman Development Company, discussed views and impacts with the use of the cross section analysis. Ms. McAfee (living in the apartments) said she was not opposed to the development of the hill, but was concerned about the existing traffic prob- lems in the area and the impact this project would have. She wondered if Highridge Road would ever be completed. Mr. McTaggart asked about the status of the bike path plan. Director High- tower said it was still undecided between Traffic Committee, Council, and Rolling Hills Estates. Mr. McTaggart requested a copy of the bike path study and plan, and expressed concern that the proposed entrances would possibly be in conflict with the proposed path. The public hearing was declared closed. In response to questions of the Commission, the applicant said that the highest ridge line would be at 1236 feet; the maximum building height would be 30 feet; the minimum spacing between blocks of units would be 20 feet; the streets would be split in elevation; the setbacks would be staggered; there would be private outdoor open space in the way of patios, decks/bal- conies, but no fences above 42 inches; and that per the Commission's request, he would submit preliminary renderings (which would be of traditional medi- terranean styling). The Commission further discussed the driveway slopes and access, and con- cern was expressed about the large terraced areas. The feelings of the Commission were that visibility of the development would be very limited; there are no natural slopes existing; the grading would enhance the views of the surrounding properties; overall it meets the kinds of changes the Commission has been discussing for the grading ordinance and is a reason- able approach to the site. They were concerned about the amount and angle of the fill and felt all slopes should be treated in a natural manner. The Commission requested that staff address some of the created slopes at the Ravenspur end, i.e. how decreasing the slope would affect the project. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried, this item was tabled until the next regular meeting. At 9:20 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. with the same members present. GRADING NOS. 106, 107, 108 Mr. Weber described the location and Via Campesina, Lots A, B, C the request, explaining that all con - Applicant: Robert Hellweg struction was proposed for the extreme slopes and the proposed grading was excessive. There would be large pad- ded living areas, but no view obstruction. Staff recommendation is that the application be tabled pending revision of the plans or be denied based on the findings listed in the staff report. Robert Hellweg, applicant, said he was in a joint venture with Smith Realty (owner of Lot B) and Mr. Horowitz (owner of Lots A and C). He pointed out that these were separate homes and not one development. He gave the back- ground of the lots and discussed the existing access easement in the front portion of the lots. He explained that he has explored other ideas, but they are not feasible. Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering Corp., spoke about the grading, indicat- ing that the existing slope is 1,:l. LaVerne Yakubik, 26101 Basswood, spoke in favor and referred to a letter from her husband (Andrew Yakubik) dated October 28. Staff gave the Commis- sion a copy of this letter to read. Some of the Commissioners were concerned about the large area to be carved out, and felt the grading was excessive considering the steepness of the slope. They questioned having swimming pools on these lots, as they would necessitate an even larger flat pad; and that although pools were nice amenities, they were not necessary. They also wondered if a nine -foot liv- ing area would be very usable. Other Commissioners felt that padding for the pool would not be objection- able if the dirt comes from the site itself; that if the houses were built into the slope, there would be no light coming into the rear portion of the house, no outdoor living area, and no way to walk around the houses. It was pointed out that the proposed setback is in accordance with the zoning requirement, the project meets the 30 -foot height limit, and there exists an almost impossible slope. In response to some of the concerns expressed, Mr. Hellweg said yards would be terraced, with the swimming pools on a different the houses, and the wall would be low; he could use a different the rear level than configuration, 11/23/76 Planning Commission Minutes -2- • have more separation between the homes, and have more deck area on the second floor; and he further explained that he cannot bring the houses forward without encroaching into the 20 -foot easement. The Commission felt they would like to review these proposals more care- fully at a work session. They explained to the applicant that no decision would be made at that session, but that the Commission would be looking at them along with the proposed grading revisions. On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, this item was tabled until the next regular meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 20 _I11r. Weber gave the background of the GRADING NO. 111 request, indicating the present use SIGN PROGRAM and the proposed use of staff quar- 30804 Hawthorne Boulevard ters in an institutional district. Applicant,: William Roberts He identified the project location on the map; explained that the designs of the structures vary and the maxi- mum height would be 21 feet; described the surrounding area and the pro- posed access which would be a 500 -foot cul-de-sac; and showed the location of a ten -foot wide sewer trunk line easement. He then reviewed the criteria as shown in the chart (in the staff report); said Staff suggests the size of the parking spaces be changed; and explained that the major concern is grading and that due to the size of the site, Staff has tried to identify what is referred to as a sphere of influence. He said the structures would not be highly visible and there would be no view obstruction. Staff recom- mendation re grading is for two revisions as listed in the staff report, page 5. Staff recommendation re the conditional use permit is for approval subject to the nine conditions listed in the staff report, page 6. The public hearing was declared open. William Roberts, applicant, discussed the grading, said the cul-de-sac could be moved back (per staff's recommendation), and answered questions of the Commission. In response to questions, Mr. Weber showed cross sections and explained what the created slopes would be and the grading effect, saying there would be one large flat pad for the homes, with terracing. He showed elevations of two different plans and said there was a third plan which was similar. Mr. Roberts added that the design is somewhat standard for the Salvation Army personnel. As there were no further speakers, the public hearing was declared closed. The Commission agreed with Staff's recommendation that the slopes be made more gentle. They questioned having a retaining wall of five feet and during discussion of the sewer easement, the applicant explained that the Sanitation District raises no objection with the plans and is sending a letter so stating. The Commissioners concurred that they wished to have the grading plan re- drawn showing less grading and slopes which are more natural in appearance, and so directed the applicant to revise his plan. On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried, this item was tabled until the next regular meeting, and that if the applicant is unable to submit the plans prior to this meeting, Staff should schedule this item for another agenda. Regarding the sign program, Director Hightower said there existed a differ- ence of opinion in regard to the legality of the existing signs, and that this seemed a good time to clear up this matter. She explained the signing provisions of the institutional zone and described the existing signs and their location. Staff recommendation is for approval of the signs subject to the three conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. McTaggart said he was opposed to illuminating signs, particularly being so close to the public right-of-way, and felt they were a safety hazard. He also felt that allowing this would be precedent setting. 11/23/76 Planning Commission Minutes -3- • • Mr. Roberts said they often have visitors and cadets who are strange to this area and because the streets are so dark and the facility is not visi- ble from the road, without the illuminating signs, the facility would be impossible to find. In response to a question, City Attorney Pat Coughlan said that directional signs are permitted in the median, but must be City signs. Although the other Commissioners agreed that the subject sign attracts attention, they did not feel it was a safety hazard. They felt that a cer- tain amount of signing was necessary, particularly in the dark, to enable strangers to find the facility. Mr. Blue proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Signs #1 (two signs) and Sign #2 subject to the following conditions: 1. The blank signboard shall be removed within thirty (30) days. 2. The applicant shall dim the illumination level of the signs to eliminate the "halo effect" within thirty (30) days. 3. The applicant shall apply for the appropriate electrical permits within ten (10) days. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Blue, Hughes, Shaw NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: Rosenberg HEIGHT VARIATION CRITERIA Mr. Coughlan explained that the City Council was concerned that the Com- mission may be applying architectural or aesthetic standards for houses. He felt the word "compatible" may be causing a problem, and explained that the Council did not intend for any aesthetic consideration, but rather how many two-story houses were now existing in the neighborhood, etc. He said the word "neighborhood" was not necessarily limited to mean individual subdivisions, but might have a much broader definition. He explained that the goal was to give the Com- mission and Council as much flexibility as possible. He stressed the importance of making findings, explaining an application must pass all six findings, and that the Commission must base its decision on these findings. He said if the Commission makes its decision and re- quests staff to draft the findings to present at the next meeting, the recorder should so state what was being done and why, as all actions must be justified. When asked, Mr. Coughlan said there was no legal obligation to consider neighboring cities in reaching a decision. If someone offers legal objec- tions, he said the secretary should write them down, read them back to be sure they are correct, and the Commission should state that these will be submitted to the City Council. OTHER LEGAL QUESTIONS In answer to questions concerning the grading revisions, Mr. Coughlan ad- vised using negative wording, i.e. "no grading on slopes of over 35% except on those lots which have been previously subdivided and meet certain standards." He agreed with the suggestion that no new lots should be created with all 35% slope. Another suqgestion was to require a geological report on lots with slopes over a specified percen- tage. He said having an applicant sign a waiver does not legally release the City of all responsibility. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower explained that Staff was occasionally asked for phone numbers of the Commissioners, and since there was no existing policy, Staff requests the Commissioners to designate which numbers, if any, they would like given to citizens. 11/23/76 Planning Commission Minutes -4- 0 6 The preferred numbers are as follows: Blue = either work or home number Hughes = just office number McTaggart = home number, after 6 p.m. Shaw = home number Staff is to check with Mr. Rosenberg at the next meeting. MINUTES On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, the minutes of the meet- ing of November 9, 1976, were approved as submitted. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Blue, McTaggart, Shaw NOES: Hughes ABSENT: Rosenberg ADJOURNMENT At 12:20 a.m. it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting to Thursday, December 2, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. 11/23/76 Planning Commission minutes -5-