Loading...
PC MINS 19780228M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting February 28, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard. Roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, Chairman McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planner Keith Turner, Assistant Planner Charlie Jencks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes and carried, the minutes of February 14, 1978 were approved, with a correction on page 1, paragraph 2 under Tentative Tract 33093 to read, "Mr. Weber suggested a minor change to Section 4..." TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32110 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 33 APPLICANT/LANDOWNER: The Burrells Assistant Planner Keith Turner presented maps and photos of the project and re- viewed a number of areas of concern identified by Staff and the Commission at the previous meeting. Mr. Turner indicated there were approximately 165 potential units that could take access off an extension of Crenshaw; however, this figure may be reduced somewhat as a result of more accurately locating the active landslide and by virtue of the fact that some of these units may have access rights through Portuguese Bend. Public hearing was opened. Tim Burrell, applicant, indicated he concurred with Staff's recommendation regarding open space and pointed out that the water reclamation system has been eliminated. Mr. Burrell presented three cross sections of lots 2,4, and 5 to illustrate the relationship of these lots to the proposed park. It was his proposal to utilize steeper cut slopes and walls to delineate park property from private property. Bruce Lockwood, of Lockwood -Singh Associates, geologists for the project, indicated that the water reclamation system had been eliminated because the drip irrigation system incorporated in it might affect the surface soil. Mr. Lockwood indicated septic tanks would be entirely satisfactory from a soils engineering/geologic standpoint, provided the locations are approved and are sufficiently set back from the slopes so there would be no daylighting of fluids on the slope surface. However, connection with a sewer is the complete optimum. Septic tanks and seepage pits are acceptable and would be safe on this site but., -under any circumstances, they are not as satisfactory as sewers;, if it is feasible to install them. With regard to the extension of Crenshaw, Mr. Lockwood indicated there would be no geologic hazard whatsoever by extending Crenshaw approximately two hundred feet; no adverse geologic conditions exist on this site insofar as paving a considerable distance along Crenshaw. 6 0 In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Lockwood indicated that no dynamiting would be necessary for excavating for the septic tanks; that there is plenty of limestone in the geologic section to ensure adequate percolation; that he had not inspected the site since the recent heavy rains; and that no test pits were required near the Crenshaw right-of-way because the rocks are exposed at that point. Mr. Lockwood inidcated he had recommended to the applicant that all foundations be placed in bedrock. Speaking in opposition to the proposal were Cleve Stoskopf, 30415 Amber Sky; Phil Kennedy, Vice President of the Del Cerro Homeowners Association; Henry Lee, 30463 Amber Sky; and Spence Ballard, 30423 Amber Sky. Concern was expressed over the extension of Crenshaw and the potential risks involved; the effect of this proposal on the Del Cerro neighborhood; view obstruction; access off Crenshaw. Concern was further expressed that the project is proposed as an RPD and that, as a result, it would not meet the density standards established for RS -2 zoning. In response to the comments made, Assistant Planner Turner indicated that, since the number of units allowable is based on the acreage of developable area, eleven units would theoretically be possible under RS -2 zoning and would therefore also be allowed under the RPD. Mr. Turner further pointed out that Staff would not endorse any structures until the view analysis has been completed. Tim Burrell clarified the procedure for extending Crenshaw, indicating there would be no massive regrading or blasting. In fact, there will be no blasting on the site. Mr. Burrell indicated he would be offering a scenic easement for dedication to the City. Mr. Turner indicated the proposed scenic easement has not yet been reviewed by the Staff or discussed with the City Attorney. It was moved by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unani- mously carried, to continue the public hearing on this item. It was the consensus of the Commission to deal individually with each of the issues discussed in the Staff Report, with the addition of the question of whether this project is appropriately an RPD. Open Space: It was the concensus of the Commission that the computation of the common open space for this project include the areas of private patios and yards in excess of the required 400 sq. ft. per bedroom per unit, on the condition that the common open space remains accessible through the establishment of a boundary line for the project, a,_ban...om-,fencing, or some other method. Staff was instructed to investigate alternative methods of accomplishing this goal. Suitability of RPD: Assistant Planner Turner indicated that an RPD would allow greater flexibility in design; standard uniform sub- division on this site might be more impactive on views. Mr. Turner reiterated that going to an RPD does not allow a higher density than that which would be permitted under a standard subdivision. The applicant could achieve 30% common open space with the current design by "meandering" the common open space throughout the project. The Commission directed Staff to prepare a sketch for the next meeting which would depict a view of a traditional subdivision on this site. The sketch would provide the Commission with a basis for comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of an RPD as opposed to conventional subdivision design. P.C. MINUTES -2- 2/28/78 Crenshaw Right -of -Way; It was moved by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried that the Planning Commission request the City Council to direct the Traffic Committee to review the potential impacts on all the associated arterials if Crenshaw Boulevard is extended down the hill to facilitate access to properties that are currently zoned for development. It was the concensus of the Commission that the concept of an extension of Crenshaw be approved. View Obstruction: Consideration of this issue was postponed pending Staff's completion of a view obstruction analysis. Se agate Access Points for Lots 1 and 2: It was the concensus of the Commission that, based on the Pulblic Works Director's recommendations, this concept be approved. Park Compatibility: Concern was expressed over the relationship of all the structures to the park, and in particular, the proximity of Lots 4 and 5. It was the concensus of the Commission that resolution of this item would depend upon resolution of the RPD issue and should, therefore, be postponed. Staff was requested to give particular attention to buffering for areas closest to the park and to make policy recommendations for these ares. Flood Control: Based upon staff's assurances that the installation of flooT -control facilities to the satisfaction of the County Engineer will be required upon development; thAti,-_Ithe.,appLcant will be required to participate in the financing of flood control improvements to Altamira Canyon; and that Staff will consider landscaping to help mitigate water runoff problems in the final landscape plan for the project, it was the concensus of the Commission that this issue be removed from further consideration. Septic Taftks: It was the concensus of the Commission that sewers be required. -- _1 Mr. Burrell indicated that he would be prepared to address the issue of the advantages of an RPD at the next Commission meeting. Mr. McTaggart indicated to the audience that the public hearing would be reopened at that time. RECESS At 10:00 p.m. Mr. McTaggart called a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:07 p.m. with the same members present. PARCEL MAP 7915 Associate Planner Weber reviewed the 30029 & 30035 Grandpoint application for realignment of a common Lane Applicants: Spilberg Bennell & Staff's recommendation ment, and the fact that lot line adjustment be property line between 30029 and 30035 Grandpoint Lane, made necessary by in- correct placement of a fence, retaining wall, swimming pool, and pool equipment over the current property line. It was that, due to the minor nature of the adjust - it was to correct an existing problem, the approved. Michael Stephenson, Esq, 413 West 7th Street, San Pedro, appeared on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Stephenson had nothing to add to the Staff Report. P.C. MINUTES -3- 2/28/78 There being no one present to speak on this issue, it was moved by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution PC 78-28, approving Parcel Map 7915, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, as prepared by Staff. Appeal of Height Variation Assistant Planner Charlie Jencks reviewed No. 84 the proposal for a second story addition APPLICANT/APPELLANT: over the front of an existing single The Merrilis story structure. No view obstruction would LOCATION: 30851 Rue Valois occur as a result of the addition. How- ever, Staff had denied the height variation based upon the incompatibility of the project with the surrounding neighbor- hood, which is primarily composed of single story structures. It was suggested that, since changes to the height variation section of the Code are pending before the Council which could eliminate neighborhood compatibility from the criteria for height variations, this item should be postponed until that Code Amendment is processed. It was the concensus of the Commission that this item be heard at this time. Milan Smith, 1624 Granvia Altamira, Palos Verdes Estates, represented the applicants/appellants. It was Mr. Smith's contention that, based upon correspondence from the City Attorney dated 1-26-77 and 3-17-77 no height variation is needed because there would be no view obstruction created by this addition. However, even if the Commission were to determine that an application was necessary, the criteria for height variations, as indicated by the City Attorney's correspondence, is strictly one of view obstruction, not compatibility. On this basis, the application should be approved. However, even if the issue of compatibility is appropriate, this criteria is met by the proposed addition since there are a number of two story homes in the neighbor- hood, many of which are even larger than the applicant's residence. Finally., Mr,,. Smith presented a -petition signed by a number of the residents of Rue Valois indicating that they were not opposed to the Merrills' proposal. Dr. Merrill, applicant, indicated that the addition was made to acquire additional bedroom space. Dr. Merrill presented pictures taken from lots adjacent to his and some pictures of two story homes in the area. It was pointed out that the interpretation of the height variation section of the Code has since been changed by Council, so that all criteria contained in the Code are used in evaluating height variation requests, rather than strictly the issue of view obstruction. Speaking in opposition to the propos ki. were Joe Clifford, 30907 Rue de la Pierre, President of the West Palos Verdes Estates Homeowner's Association;, Richard Koeani, 30949 Via Rivera; John Fabish, 30921 Via Rivera; Mrs. Will 30757 Rue Valois; John Nash, 30929 Via Rivera; and Peter Hoorebeke, 30935 Via Rivera. Concern was expressed with view obstruction; the compatibility of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood, which was established over fifteen years ago as a one story area; the possibility of setting a precedent for two story additions in the area if this addition is approved; the cumulative effect of similar structures on views; the additional weight this structure will place on the soil; the violation of the CC&Rs by this addition. P.C. MINUTES -4- 2/28/78 After a brief rebuttal by Mr. Smith, it was moved by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously carried to close public input on this issue. Following a brief Commission discussion on the compatibility of the structure with the existing neighborhood, it was moved by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe that the Planning Commisison deny the appeal of Staff's denial of Height Variation No. 84, due to the Commission's inability to make the finding required by Section 9113-A-�,-1(b) of the City's Development Code. Motion carried, with Mr. McTaggart voting in opposition. It was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that, due to the confusion over interpretation and the fact that the Code is in the process of being revised, the appeal fee for this height variation (if an appeal is subsequently filed) be refunded, regardless of the outcome. STATE LEGISLATION RE Mr. Rosenberg discussed a recent piece PLANNING COMMISSIONST of State legislation enabling counties to set up two planning commissions, one to deal with current planning matters and the other to deal with long range planning. It was the concensus of the Commission that Staff be requested to investigate this legislation, to determine if it would also apply to cities. TREE TRIMMING It was the concensus of the the City Council. PRE-MEETINGS/BRIEFING SESSIONS/TOURS regular briefing session No Commission action was ADJOURNMENT Mrs. Bacharach distributed copies of a summary she had prepared of the Tree Trimming workshop held on February 7. Commission that the summary be forwarded to Associate Planner Weber called the Commission's attention to a memo from the Director of Planning regarding the possibility of holding some kind of prior to regular Planning Commission meetings. taken on this matter. At 11:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting. P.C. MINUTES -5- 2/28/78