Loading...
PC MINS 19780509M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting May 9. 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. Roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planners Keith Turner and Richard Gonzalez. OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Brown execution of the Oath, Dr. Brown mission by Chairman Hughes. Mrs. and did not return. I Director of Planning 'Hightower--kdmiEsf— tered the Oath of Allegiance for Public Officers and Employees to newly appoint- ed Commissioner Harvey Brown. Following was formally welcomed to the Planning Com - Hightower left the meeting at this time APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page three of the April 25, 1978, Plan- ning Commission minutes was corrected to read (third full paragraph), "He said he was not prepared to give blanket approval...". On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the minutes of April 25, 1978, were approved as corrected. RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 78-34 The Commission made changes to the con - Tentative Parcel Map No. 10241 ditions contained in Resolution 78-34 as follows: Condition #8, "on the basis of information in the geology report dated April 28, 1977...". Condition #2 is to be reworded by staff to require the developer to j2j:a a sewer district, rather than file a waiver of non- objection to sewer district. The first paragraph of the resolution was cor- rected to read "...which would allow for the division of a 1.48 acre lot..." Assistant Planner Turner indicated that the Commission's denial of a variance for the creation of three lots on this parcel map has been appealed to the City Council; if that appeal is granted, Resolution No. P.C. 78-34 will be- come null and void. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. P.C. 78-34 as amended. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 262 Appeal of Staff Denial 11 Rockinghorse Road Appellant: Richard Hardie ceived, and it was Mr. Turner's reduction in grading. Assistant Planner Turner indicated this item was continued from the last meet- ing to allow the applicant to revise his plans to more closely comply with the intent and criteria of the Grading Ordinance. Revised plans had been re - opinion that there had been a substantial Richard Hardie, 11 Rockinghorse Road, outlined the changes made to his plans, including decreases in the amount of cut and fill, the total graded area, the amount of 2:1 slope grading, the maximum height of fill and maximum depth of cut. There being no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Commission discus- sion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that the appellant had taken significant steps to meet the concerns of the Planning Commission. Accordingly, it was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried to approve Grading Application No. 262, with a land- scape plan to be approved by the Director of Planning. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8947 Assistant Planner Turner summarized the Request for Revision to Condition request for a revision to one of the Applicant: Narvan Corporation conditions of approval for Parcel Map No. 8947. It was the applicant's con- tention that the means of payment of $9,251 to the City for improvements to Altamira Canyon was inequitable, in that he is being required to pay the assessment on land which will not be developed for some time. It was his request that the $1,869 assessment for Parcel 2 be paid immediately, prior to the approval of the final parcel map, but that the $7,381 payment for Parcel 1 be delayed, to be paid prior to the issuance of any permits or the acceptance of any application for further subdivision for Parcel No. 1. Mr. Turner indicated that the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works had reviewed the request, and it was their recommendation that the request be approved. Concern was expressed with the possible precedent of granting this request. It was pointed out that a recent subdivision at the end of Crenshaw had been assessed a large amount for Altamira Canyon improvements; since that tract also has considerable undevelopable land, they might make a similar request. Thus, if a substantial portion of the land feeding into Altamira Canyon and slated to contribute to its improvement was undevelopable, insufficient funds would be generated to make substantial improvements to the drainage of the canyon. It was suggested that this matter be reviewed by the City Attorney. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously approved, this item was tabled to the next meeting to allow staff to further research the matter, including discussions with the Director of Public Works regarding his reasons for recommending approval of the request, and submit- ting the issue to the City Attorney so he might review the concerns of the Commission and provide the Commission with an opinion. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 265 Assistant Planner Gonzalez summarized Lot 127, Tr. 25160, Sattes Drive the request for grading for a two-level Applicant: Robert Sutton single family residence. It was Mr. Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. Norman Birch Gonzalez's opinion that the project meets the criteria established in the Grading Ordinance (grading is not ex- cessive, minimizes disturbance to the natural contours, and will not signi- ficantly affect the visual relationship with, nor the views from, neighbor- ing sites), and that Grading Application No. 265 should be approved. The landowner, Norman Birch, 1709 Martis Avenue, San Pedro, was present. I On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 265 was approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 35 Assistant Planner Turner summarized the VARIANCE NO. 25 request for a conditional use permit Landowner/Applicant: Matt BrLMinlng and several variances for the construc- tion of a two-story commercial profes- sional structure at the corner of Silver Spur Road and the Silver Spur frontage road. Variances to the City's parking, landscaping, and street setback requirements would be required. Since the project's concept design is largely based on the request for a parking variance, Mr. Turner focused his comments on that request, indicating he did not feel the necessary findings could be made to allow such a variance. A more cursory review of the other two variance requests revealed that staff would have difficulty making findings for them also. Staff also expressed preliminary comments on the height of the structure and the amount of grad- ing required. It was Mr. Turner's recommendation that following public testimony, the Commission encourage the applicant to revise the concept plan 5/9/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 -2- 0- 0 to eliminate the need for a parking variance and that this item be tabled in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to do so. The other two variances, and the concerns of staff re grading and structure height, would be addressed after a revised concept Flan is received. Chairman Hughes declared the public hearing open. Mr. Brunning, the applicant, made the following points: (1) The parking requirement should be applied to the leasable footage, rather than the total footage of the building; this structure has 10,000 square feet of leasable area. (2) This proposal compares favorably to nearby commercial structures, both in terms of visual impact and parking spaces provided. (3) The City's parking requirements are much more restrictive than the requirements of neighboring cities, requiring 2.4 times more spaces than the most rigid of the codes from adjoining cities. (4) If the variance is approved, he would stipulate that no medical and dental tenants would be allowed in the build- ing; without such uses, which generate a great deal of traffic, the proposed 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable area would be more than adequate. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Brunning indicated that multi-level parking structures had been considered, but he did not feel they were suitable to the atmosphere of the Peninsula. Roof -top parking had also been considered, but there were concerns with maneuverability. The 15 -foot retaining wall on the property could be reduced, but that would further cut down on the number of parking spaces available. There has been a slight failure on the slope of the property, caused by the failure of a swale; that is, it was caused by a mud slide, not a geologic failure. According to the geologist for the project, some corrective grading will be required to reconstruct the swale. Mr. Turner indicated the City has a 50% maximum coverage requirement. Further- more,in`''researching the reason for the City's parking requirement, it was his understanding that the requirement had been written into the Code based on the anticipated incorporation of medical and dental uses in commercial professional zones. Dan Thompson (6726 Los Verdes Drive), an associate of Mr. Brunning's, presented a preliminary rendering of the structure. Mr. Thompson also submitted photo- graphs of parking in lots adjacent to the Silver Spur frontage road taken at various times; it was his contention that the existing parking available be- hind the offices along the frontage lot is not currently being utilized, contributing to congestion of on -street parking. Paul Lieberman (19815 Mildred Avenue, Torrance) an investor in the project, spoke in favor of the project. Ralph Ferm, 27645 Longhill Drive, immediately above the property in question, expressed concern with the stability of the slope and questioned the extent of geologic tests which will be conducted on the property before any grading takes place. Mr. Turner responded that a geology report had been done on the property, and a copy of that report will be obtained by Staff. Geology review is conducted by the County, who will thoroughly review the geology in the area before granting any permits. There being no one else wishing to speak on this matter, it was moved by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried that the public hearing be continued. Commission discussion ensued. Concern was expressed with the City's parking requirements; based on the traffic generation figures contained in the initial study for the project, it was suggested that perhaps the City's requirements might be excessive. It was suggested that a standard of 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leas-dble' 5/9/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- area would be more appropriate. It was questioned whether the City could actually exclude certain uses (i.e., medical and dental) which would normally be permitted in this zone; moreover, it was pointed out that imposing this condition now could not guarantee that the conditions would not be changed by some future Planning Commission, a procedure which is fairly easy to accomplish. It was suggested that it would not be in the best interests of the City, on the first application for a commercial use, to cut the Code requirements in half. The City might wish to consider a change in the Code. It was suggested that some small parking spaces for compact cars could be utilized to increase the number of parking spaces available. With regard to the street setback variance, concern was expressed with inter- section visibility. It was suggested that there would be adequate visibility if landscaping was not too extensive; moreover, adhering to the 20, setback requirement would only exacerbate the parking problem. It was further suggested that, since the project constitutes only 14 of the Peninsula Center, much of which has very small setbacks, a setback variance for this project would be appropriate. It was the consensus of the Commission that a reduced setback may -be acceptable -.- With regard to landscaping variance, it was further the consensus of the Commission that some reduction in the minimum landscaping requirement may be acceptable. Mr. Turner indicated that the staff would insist on maintaining a good line of sight, both through conditions imposed on the project and through the land- scaping plans associated with the project. Further Commission discussion produced the suggestion that, in light of the concerns with the geology of this area (generated by the identification of a possible landslide in this area in the General Plan), grading should be mini- mized as much as possible; -ac multi-level parking strueter would substantially reduce the amount of cut required. Mr. Brunning indicated he would bring in cross sections of X multi-level parking strcaeture-for the Commission's review; however, there is a potential for a circulation problem with such a structure. Mr. Brunning further indicated he would be willing to file CC&Rs prohibiting any medical/dental uses of the facility. Mr. McTaggart suggested that, if the City were a party to the-CC-&Rs,,so they could not be changed without the City's concurrence, such an arrangement would be acceptable to him. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Brunning indicated he would procure a copy of a study recently conducted by South Bay Engineering regarding traffic and parking in the Peninsula Center. It was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried that this item be continued until such time as the applicant submits new plans which increase parking to at least 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, submits the geology report to staff, and provides staff with a copy of the South Bay Engineering report. It was further moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, that the staff investigate the City's parking requirements, including the number of spaces required, and the use of net vs. gross footage, regarding the possibility of a Code Amendment. RECESS At 9:45 p.m. Chairman Hughes called for a brief recess. The Commission reconvened at 9:55 p.m. with the same members present. 5/9/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 36 Mr. Turner summarized the request for a VARIANCE 26 variance to permit a twelve foot high 30421 Miraleste Dr. tennis court fence in the front setback; Applicant/Landowner: it was Mr. Turner's recommendation that Frank Iacono the request be denied, on the basis that all of the necessary findings could not be made. Mr. Turner- further summarized the request for a conditional use permit for eight lights for the tennis court. The lights and stanchions (as well as the poles for the fence) have already been installed by the applicant. It was Staff's recommendation that, since the lights have already been _ illegally installed, a date and time be arranged when the lights would be turned on; this would allow the Commission and the neighbors to observe the actual effect of these lights on nighttime views from nearby residences. Chairman Hughes opened the public hearing. Frank Iacono (1550 Stonewood Court, San Pedro) indicated that the fence would not be visible from the street and would therefore not be obtrusive. He had spoken with some of the neighbors regarding his proposals and had received no negative comments. The tennis lighting used is a very high quality light, which gives little "halo" effect. Mr. Iacono indicated he would be willing to arrange for a time to try the lights and analyze their impact.//x,11" dc�eitli.� dGc. w�a� vrcr-,rte�Gc.Ja� i_e� ,6d .,&� - Mr. Dulac (41 Avenida Corona) residing about two lots from the Iacono's, expressed concern with the impact of the lights on views and also with the possibility of increased noise. Lucille Gren, 30328 Kingsridge, and Ed Strickland., 39 Avenida Corona, expressed similar concerns. There being no one else wishing to speak on this matter, it was moved by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried to continue the public hearing. It was the consensus of the Commission that the variance for the fence would be acceptable, if consent was granted by the adjacent neighbors. It was further the consensus of the Commission that the Conditional Use Permit should be tabled to allow a test to determine the effect of the lights; however, this test should not be conducted until after the tennis court has been surfaced-. It was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe that the conditional use permit be tabled, with a date to be set to view the site after the tennis court has been surfaced. Motion carried, with Mr. McTaggart dissenting. It was agreed that the date would be set at the next meeting. It was moved by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe and unanimously carried to table Variance 26 until the applicant secures the permission to install the fence from residents of lots 16, 17, 18, 18 on Daladier Drive, and lots 1, 2)(1 and 4 on the private drive. Staff was directed to prepare a letter for Mr. Iacono to circulate to the residents. STAFF REPORTS Associate Planner Weber indicated that on April 11 Staff had inquired as to whether the Commission would consider conducting informal conceptual reviews of potential projects. Mr. Weber reported that such informal, preliminary reviews could be held at the end of the Commission's regular meetings; however, they would be scheduled only when the agenda was fairly small and would easily accommodate extra items. This review would give developers an opportunity to hear from the decision -makers what their concerns are likely to be. This informal review could be advangateous to the developer; however, there may not be any developers actually willing to go through such a preliminary review. The Commission expressed concern that such a review would exclude interested citizens from the early phases of the proposal; that this might be negatively viewed by the citizens; and that it might be construed as "pre -judging" the proposals, precipitating some legal complications. It was suggested that perhaps, instead of conducting this review at a meeting, Staff could send - schematic drawings to the Commissioners, who would then submit their comments to the Staff.' 5/9/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- It was the consensus of the Commission that they would be willing to try such a review, with the City Attorney present; the procedure would then be critiqued before using it on a regular basis. ANTENNA ORDINANCE Mrs. Bacharach called the Commission's attention to a copy of a newspaper article in their agenda packets regarding a U.S. Supreme Court case involving antennas (Schroeder v. City of Cerritos). It was the consensus of the Commission that the City Attorney be requested to review this decision to determine whether it would affect his interpretation of the City's antenna ordinance. SELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN It was moved by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried to select Jacki Bacharach as the Vice -Chairman of the Planning Commission. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown questioned the City's procedures for dealing with illegal construction. It was responded that the City's policy is to allow individuals who have proceeded with construction without a permit to make the necessary applications. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern that Rolling Hills Estates is changing the signals on a County highway, to wit, Hawthorne Boulevard at Palos Verdes Drive North, causing tremendous traffic jams and seriously inconveniencing Rancho Palos Verdes residents. Staff was requested to investigate whether the City could appeal to the County to have this activity stopped; it was further requested that, since both cities contract with the same main- tenance firm, perhaps the City could contact that firm and request that something be done to improve the signal. ADJOURNMENT At 11:55 p.m. it was moved by Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, to adjourn the meeting. 5/9/78 PLANNING COMMISISON MINUTES -6-