Loading...
PC MINS 19761213• M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting December 13, 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, Rosenberg, Shaw ABSENT: McTaggart Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Planner Gary Weber. MINUTES APPROVAL Director Hightower said the Council work session on the Coastal Plan has been scheduled for December 20 at 7:30 p.m. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Blue, the minutes of November 18, 1976, were approved as submitted. Mr. Hughes asked if the conditions of the Salvation Army's sign approval have been complied with, and Mr. Roberts indicated that they had. On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the minutes of November 23, 1976, were approved as submitted. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the minutes of December 2, 1976, were approved with the following correction: No. 6 -- change 25%+ to 35%+. Mrs. Shaw proposed adding to the agenda discussion on reconsidering the Hildreth Height Variation. On motion of Mrs. Shaw, seconded by Mr. Blue, and carried, this item was placed on the agenda as item VI. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 19 The public hearing was re -opened and TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32677 Mr. Weber explained that at the last Highridge, south of Hawthorne meeting major issues were discussed and Boulevard concerns were raised, and that informa- Applicant: Cayman Development tion requested by the Commission has Company been addressed in the staff report. He explained the expected results if the 1 1/2:1 slopes were decreased to 2:1, saying that in the worst case location the pad area could be reduced by as much as 35 feet. He said an alternative approach would be to reduce only the top portion of the slope. He said the project is not a residen- tial planned development as originally described, but is a development in an RM -8 district; therefore, the RM -8 standards apply; and re open space and outdoor living area, these standards are exceeded. Regarding the status of the bikeway, the issue is still unresolved due to the difference in the design concepts of the two cities. He indicated on the board each of the concepts in relationship to this project, noting that there would be a point of traffic conflict if this City's design were used. Mr. Weber said that the proposal conforms with the Code, and Staff re- commends approval of both requests subject to several conditions. He ex- plained the two courses of action and said the recommendation is that the conditional use permit resolution be formally adopted. He read Staff's proposed changes and additions to the tract map conditions. In response to a question raised by Mr. Hughes regarding lot size re- quirements, Mr. Weber said the minimum lot size in order to develop mul- tiple units is 10,000 square feet (65 feet wide and 110 feet deep), and that the 5400 square feet of land per unit requirement is for density purposes. Glenn Shaffer, Cayman Development Company, suggested creating a roll in- stead of Staff's proposal for grading. He submitted additional material to the Commission and discussed open space, etc., based on the prelimi- nary floor plans. He showed elevations and said the buildings would be 411 411 of rough textured stucco with red tile roofs; and explained that with staggered setbacks, variations to the floor plans, and changes to the roof style and balcony details, each building and each unit would have a different appearance. The public hearing was declared closed. In answer to Commission questions, Director Hightower explained that if there exists a practical possibility for an additional access and the Fire Department requests that there be one, Staff feels there should be for emergency purposes. She further said that it is the policy of the City Council that developers improve the roadway, adding that in this case, improvement of the median would have to wait until the bikeway design is decided. The Commission discussed any view obstruction which may result, but de- cided there was less obstruction with the proposed grading than there would be using the existing slopes . Mr. Rosenberg stated he had studied the minutes of the previous meeting and felt qualified to vote on this matter. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Blue, approving Condi- tional Use Permit No. 19, subject to the conditions as presented in Exhibit "A" with the following correction: No. 12, last line, should read " . . .changes or modifications. . . " Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Blue, Hughes, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: McTaggart Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Blue, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract No. 32677 , subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" , as modified by the changes and addi- tions presented tonight. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Blue, Hughes, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: McTaggart RECESS At 8 :40 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:48 with Mr. Blue absent. GRADING NO. 106, 107, 108 Mr. Weber explained that this item was Via Campesina, Lots A, B, C continued from the last meeting after Applicant: Robert Hellweg the major issues had been discussed. He said Staff, as requested, reviewed the application in terms of the grading revisions, and at the work session the Commission had discussed further refinement. He said based on the four results of further evaluation, as listed in the staff report, and on the existing ordinance, Staff re- commendation is for denial or for tabling the applications until the applicant has revised the plans. Robert Hellweg, 75 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes Estates, said they would rework the plans to lower the walls, but stressed the difficulty he has had in coming up with a plan for these lots due to the steepness. He said he would welcome any comments and suggestions from the Commis- sion which would enable him to come up with an acceptable design. Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering, had some questions regarding creat- ing steeper slopes than those existing, and explained that he had mis- understood the intent. As there were no other speakers, Mrs. Shaw closed the public participa- tion and asked for Staff comments. P.C. -2- 12/13/76 0 0 Director Hightower said Staff recommended this item be tabled for revi- sions with less grading, and asked the applicant's intentions in re- vising the plans. Mr. Hellweg pointed out the changes already made, and said he was not opposed to a continuation, but that he would appreciate some direction from the Commission to avoid continual revisions. Mr. Rosenberg did not feel the Commission could give direction because the grading ordinance was not yet completed and there was still dis- agreement on some of the proposed revisions. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Hughes, that the application be tabled until the revised grading ordinance is fina- lized, after which this item should be scheduled for review before the Planning Commission at the earliest possible meeting. During discussion, Mrs. Shaw said she did not feel that the Commission could require that the application be tabled until the ordinance is finalized unless the applicant so desires; the applicant indicated that he did not wish this. Mr. Hughes felt that general guidelines could be given such as: minimi- zation of wall heights; no slopes steeper than existing slopes at the point of grading -- with the risk factor that these guidelines might change because there are no specific criteria or standards. Roll call vote on the previous motion was as follows: AYES: Rosenberg NOES: Hughes, Shaw ABSENT: Blue, McTaggart As the above motion failed, Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Shaw, to table consideration of this item until such time as the developer presents revised plans. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: Blue, McTaggart CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 20 Mr. Rosenberg said he was not familiar GRADING NO. 111 with the application, has not reviewed 30804 Hawthorne Boulevard the plans and the site, and, therefore, Applicant: William Roberts would like to abstain from making a decision on this item tonight. Mr. Weber explained that at the last meeting, the Commission requested that the applicant revise the plans to better reflect the intent of the grading ordinance; and said the submitted revisions include changes in the grading, road design, and building organization. He said newly revised plans have also been submitted since the staff report was written, and that they have generally eliminated the 1 1/2:1 slopes. Staff recommendation is for approval of the conditional use permit and the grading application, subject to the nine conditions listed in the staff report. Public hearing was declared open. William Roberts, applicant, said the buildings would be stucco with con- crete tile roofs, and that the on -street parking has been increased. He indicated the changes on the plans. Public hearing was declared closed. In answer to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said the Fire Department requested the change in road width; explained the density in the sur- rounding residential areas; and felt that the grading could be worked out between staff and applicant within the scope of these revised plans (covered by Chapter 1, Part 4 of the Code). P.C. -3- 12/13/76 Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Shaw, to approve Condi- tional Use Permit No. 20 and Grading No. 111 subject to the conditions included in the staff report dated December 13, 1976, and designated to become Exhibit "A" of the resolution. Mr. Hughes was concerned that the structural and architectural techniques were not consistent with what is required of other residences in the area. Mrs. Shaw said the development will conform with the Code and that aesthetics are not the concern of the Commission. She indicated that she was satisfied with the revisions. Mr. Roberts showed the elevations and indicated colors and said there would be a lot of landscaping. Mr. Hughes withdrew his motion and Mrs. Shaw withdrew her second. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Shaw and carried, consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 20 and Grading No. 111 was postponed until the next regular meeting. Director Hightower asked the Commission if there was additional infor- mation that they wished for the next meeting. Mr. Hughes said no, that he would personally like to review the drawings in order to be sure in his mind of making the proper decision. Mr. Rosenberg felt the Commission should review the master plan for the entire property, and Mr. Roberts said he would bring a copy of the master plan to the next meeting. GRADING NO. 102 Mr. Weber gave the background of the 30259 Palos Verdes Drive East request, saying the lot has an existing Applicant: John Wright house, pool, and driveway which were approved in February, 1974; that grading the public right-of-way for the realign- ment of the driveway was approved in April of 1976; that in July of this year, the City's Code Inspector became aware of illegal grading; and that the grading application and minor exception permit were submitted on September 16, 1976, for a tennis court and fencing. He said the appli- cant has stated the subject area has been used for illegal dumping. He showed the proposed plans, and said the Public Works Director was opposed to having a six-foot fence up to the street because of the possibility of tennis balls flying over and on to the roadway. Staff recommendation is for denial based on the reasons listed in the staff report and that the applicant be required to restore the area to as natural a condition as possible. John Wright, applicant, described the location of the property and passed out photographs to the Commission. He showed renderings of the proposal; said it would be well -landscaped with cyprus trees in such a fashion as to follow the natural contours and blend with the existing landscaping; said there would be no view obstruction, and felt there was practical use for the area in question. Mrs. Shaw closed the public participation. In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower said the grading for the house was approved by the County prior to the City's incorpora- tion, and that the applicant would have to apply for a variance in order to request a ten -foot fence within the setback. Mr. Weber explained that Staff was basing the natural contours of the land from the information supplied in Environmental Assessment No. 10, for construction of the house. Mrs. Shaw said she looked at the wrong pad when she inspected the property and felt at a disadvantage. Mr. Rosenberg said dumping has been going that at one time this area had a much more flat. He also felt it was not the concern or not the court was standard -size. on there since 1966-67, and gentle slope and was almost of the Commission whether P.C. -4- 12/13/76 • Mr. Wright said they moved into grading refers to his flattening viously been dumped. r� the house in July, and that the illegal out the piles of dirt which had pre - Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Grading Application No. 102. The Commission felt the landscaping should provide adequate screening of the fence, and suggested this as a condition if the fence is approved. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg NOES: - Shaw ABSENT: Blue, McTaggart GRADING NO. 119 Mr. Weber described the proposed project Crestwind Drive, Lot 21, and its location, saying the proposed Tract 24872 grading of 1144 cubic yards was for Applicant: Marvin E. Miller construction of a single family home, access, and separate turn -around drive- way. He said Staff recommendation was for approval subject to certain conditions as listed in the staff report. He pointed out that today the applicant submitted a revised plan which widens the driveway to include a 20 -foot turning radius. Roger North, architect, Redondo Beach, said the turn -around was for guest parking; and that regarding the drainage, berms collect the water at the top so that it drains onto driveway and out into street, where there are asphalt bumps to direct the water away from other properties. The Commission expressed concern also about the turning radius for a typical car, but felt this could be worked out at staff level. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, Grading No. 119 was approved subject to the conditions that the revised plans for the turn- around driveway be approved by the Director of Planning, and that plans addressing the drainage problem be approved by the Director of Public Works. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: Blue, McTaggart HILDRETH HEIGHT VARIATION The Commission discussed whether or not Decision to Reconsider the Hildreth's should go through the appeal process or whether the Commission should reconsider the request. It was felt that the applicant should not have to appeal a decision unless the Commission feels it has based its decision on facts and is confident it made the right decision. The denial was based on cumulative effect and Mrs. Shaw felt the decision was made due to a misunderstanding of the criteria, at least on her part. On motion of Mrs. Shaw, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the reconsideration of the Hildreth Height Variation was scheduled to be placed on the agenda for the meeting of December 28. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: STAFF REPORTS Hughes, Shaw Rosenberg Blue, McTaggart Director Hightower reminded the Commis- sion that the City Council meeting on the Coastal Plan will be held Monday, December 20, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. P.C. -5- 12/13/76 COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Shaw told the Commission members that the City Council was having a party on Sunday, December 19 at 7:30 p.m. at the home of Councilman Dyda, and that the Commission has been requested to bring hot and cold hors d'oeuvres for ��8-0 people. ADJOURNMENT At 11:38 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, December 28, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. P.C. -6- 12/31/76