Loading...
PC MINS 19780314M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 14, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. in the Community Room, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe (late arrival), Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber and Assistant Planner Keith Turner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES on motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of February 15, 1978, were approved as submitted. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously carried; the minutes of the meeting of February 28, 1978, were approved as submitted. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32110 Mr. Turner said he did not have the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 33 opportunity to completely review the Crenshaw Blvd. across from Seacrest letter which was submitted by the Drive (upper Nike Site) applicant to staff and the Commission Applicant: The Burrells this evening. He said the remaining issues to be discussed are the suita- bility of Residential Planned Develop- ment (RPD) as a development proposal; view obstruction/visual analysis; park compatibility; and fencing relative to common open space. Mr. Hinchliffe arrived at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Turner continued with his review of the staff report, noting that the City Attorney indicated that the applicant cannot be forced to take a stan- dard approach to subdivision unless there is some specific adverse issue that cannot be mitigated. Staff recommended that the Commission accept the RPD as a viable approach. He said the applicant responded to the Commission concern re park compatibility. He discussed fencing and open space, as proposed. He said the Public Works Director has indicated that the Traffic Committee may not be the proper body to study the potential impacts on Crenshaw, and suggested that the Commission's motion be changed to request staff to study the matter. He said if the Commission approves the RPD con- cept, grading and view obstruction/visual analysis were the two critical issues to be dealt with next. Tim Burrell discussed the open space hazard area, setbacks, and the fencing plan for security purposes. He said for preservation of view corridors, certain areas would not be fenced. He discussed park compatibility and dedicating the street to the City for park purposes instead of an easement, adding that a hammerhead turn -around would be necessary. He discussed, � drainage, said there were acres o -f- - ppen space, and that -they wantt=o preserve the option of this becoming a gd-ted community at a future date, if desired. He said he has been discussing certain aspects of the proposal with the Director of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Turner said at this point he and the Park and Recreation Director have not discussed redirecting the water, grading, etc. It was the consensus of the Commission to formally request input from the Park and Recreation Director, as they felt it was necessary to determine whether or not this plan was viable with the park goals. Mr. Burrell asked Maynard Law, Director of Park and Recreation (who was attending a Council meeting in the next room), to -speak with the Commission. Mr. McTaggart explained to Mr. Law the concerns of the Commission and said they needed information on parking, the roadway, and any grading that will take place. Mr. Law discussed what was generally proposed in the way of park access and said he would like to further review the grading proposal before giving an opinion on it. He explained that the City was just beginning to initiate design of the park, and felt that this roadway was the most feasible. He said they wished to keep parking at a minimum, keeping the park more of a neighborhood -type facility. He said he sees no conflicts between the park and the proposed development. The Commission directed that Mr. Law coordinate the input through Mr. Turner to be presented to the Commission. Woody Hays, Del Cerro Homeowners Association, asked questions about the proposal concerning open space, fencing, the road, and parking. Spencer Ballard said he would be opposed to lights on -tennis courts, if any are proposed. Cleve Stoskoph was concerned about the natural waterway located on Lot 8 and felt two-story houses were totally incompatible with the rest of the area. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Burrell said there would be a waterway-running_across the rear of -the portion of Lot 9, but not on Lot 8. He said nothing was proposed to be built across the waterway. Mr. Hughes felt the RPD allows more flexibility and that in lieu of the City Attorney's response, he could find no problem with the concept and felt they should proceed with this approach. He felt it was important to do a visual analysis to determine placement of the homes. He said effort had been made to respond to the concerns for park compatibility, that the houses have been moved back from the property line. Re traffic, he said he would like to see the Traffic Committee work with the Public Works Director, that the Traffic Committee should review potential additional traffic on Crenshaw at this site. Re fencing, he would like to see a detailed plan, that he wished to know in detail what was proposed in fencing and gated access. Mrs. Bacharach concurred with Mr. Hughes. Mr. Rosenberg said he had no problem with the RPD approach since the same number of units would be allowed under a standard subdivision. He was concerned about meeting the open space requirement and did not feel that fenced private area could be considered common open space. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred with Mr. Hughes and questioned the City's liability of park security. Mr. McTaggart felt the intent of the Open Space Ordinance was to provide recreational facilities within a project and that since this development is such a unique situation because of the park, those recreational needs were taken care of. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Turner said if swimming pools were built a five-foot fence would be required. He pointed out that staff was suggesting limiting fencing, not prohibiting it. RECESS At 9:28 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. with the same members present. 3/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Turner showed a plan indicating areas not greatly usable to the indi- vidual property owners, areas where there should not be fences, and private areas which could be computed as common open space. Mrs. Bacharach said this development will be sitting near a park and will probably be subject to vandalism as a result. She did not feel fencing should be banned. At the Commission's request, Pat Coughlan, City Attorney (who was attending the Council meeting in the next room), answered questions of the Commission re the Open Space requirement. He said if the request were approved it would not legally be setting a precedent as each project must stand on its own merits. He said the purpose of open space is to provide a feeling, of spaciousness, view corridors, etc., whether it is fenced or not. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to give credit for private areas as part of the 30o requirement for open space because of the unique situation, i.e. the location of the subdivision being next to a park and canyons, and that no limitation on fencing be required. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart NOES: Rosenberg ABSENT: None Mr. Rosenberg stated that he could not support the motion without a limita- tion on fencing. Mr. McTaggart said the Commission would like a more detailed fencing plan, and input from the Traffic Committee re location of access. 16eea,li-Q.c� ap at ._e The Commission requested a view analysis, and Mr. McTaggart expressed parti- cular concern about the proposed two-story homes. Mr. Hughes expressed concern about the ravine, and Mr. Burrell said the property was owned by Palos Verdes Properties. He said the water will be re-routed to prevent future erosion, but that the ravine would not be filled. Mr. Hughes suggested that the Public Works Director take a look at that particular area, as he felt the erosion was extensive. Mr. Turner said he would explore that with the Public Works Director and the County Engineer and report back to the Commission. He said he would also review the grading and at the next meeting display drawings and make specific recommendations. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8947 Mr. Turner reviewed the proposed divi- Lot 2, Parcel Map 2703 (99 Vander- sion of a lot into two parcels, and lip Drive, Portuguese Bend discussed the area and project descrip- Landowner: Narvan Corporation tion, topography, and project considera- tions. He said the County Engineer has recommended denial of the project for geologic hazard reasons (listed in the staff report), and the Health Department recommends denial as there appears to be no practical means of sewer installation (septic tanks not permitted). He discussed the three alternative Commission actions, being: A) denial; B) tabling the item to allow the applicant to attempt to mitigate any geologic concerns; and C) approval subject to recording on the final map a restricted use area cover- ing parcel #1, with conditions. He said in order to approve or deny the project, the Commission must make certain findings. Staff recommended alternative B) with a specific time frame. Len Coates, representing the landowner, gave the background of the project, explaining that the request is to divide the property and that the sale will take place between the two brothers. He said no one was considering development at this time and that there were no plans for the future. 3/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSI.ON MINUTES -3- He said the approach of the Vanderlips in the past has been for the preser- vation of the area, and that there were no environmental impacts. John Tretheway, president of the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association, said the Association had no objections to this project, but that they would be very interested in any development of the lower five -acre portion. John Vanderlip spoke briefly to the Commission, asking for approval of the parcel map as quickly as possible. Public participation was closed. After Commission discussion, -Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution and conditions, including the following concerns: any future development would require sewers and favorable geology reports, that the developer -sign a slide waiver; and that any future development on Lot #1 be required to be members of the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: None COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Weber commented on a bill pro- viding for local agencies to establish two Planning Commissions. He said when he receives a copy of the bill he will confer with the City Attorney and report back to the Commission. Mrs. Bacharach said she would not be present at the first meeting in April. ADJOURNMENT At 10:59 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 28, 1978. 3/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-