Loading...
PC MINS 19780808,VIA M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting August 8, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber and Assistant Planner Charlie Jencks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried (with Mr. Hughes abstaining), the minutes of the meeting of July 25, 1978, were approved with the following corrections: page 3, line 1.,. should read "comprising Of four establishments..."; page 3, 12th complete paragraph, line 4, should read "...the ordinance had a mechanism to handle..."; page 4, paragraph 6, line 4, should read "...for the parent sign..." COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Weber said he received a letter which was distributed to the Commission this evening from a resident regarding agenda item C. under New Business, Code Amendment No. 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 Mr. Jencks said at the July 11 meeting Lots 1-8, Tract 27832 (Indian the Commission conceptually approved a Valley Road) recommendation to the Council to amend Applicant: Charlotte Ferris the General Plan from the current land use designation of Residential 2-4 dwelling units per acre to Residential 6-12 dwelling units per acre on lots 1-8 of Tract 27832, based upon the determination that the single family designation was inconsistent with what is existing on the subject lots. He said the item was continued because it was determined that improper notification had been given. He said proper notification had been accomplished. He said a draft memo to the Council recommending amendment to Residential 6-12 dwelling units per acre was in- cluded in the agenda. The public hearing was opened. Charlotte Ferris, 613 Camino de Encanto, Redondo Beach, said she was seeking compatible zoning with the adjoining properties and felt that anything less than RM -12 would not be compatible. She said there was no view obstruction problem in the area. Art Kent, 29304 Indian Valley Road, said there was a current parking problem on the street with the existing apartments and was concerned because the buildings did not provide any yard area for children. Pat Rahe, 29315 Indian Valley Road, was also concerned about the existing parking problem and was, therefore, opposed to more apartments. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 4 be granted, thereby amend- ing the General Plan from the current land use designation of Residential 7.-4 dwelling units per acre to Residential 6-12 dwelling units per acre on lots 1-8 of Tract 27832. Commission discussion ensued. Mr. McTaggart explained that with this recom- mendation, should the existing apartments burn down, the owners could re- build a maximum of three units and that under the existing Code, eight parking spaces would be required. Mrs. Bacharach further explained that under RM -12 zoning, a minimum of forty (40) percent open space would be required. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes explained that this recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council who will hold another public hearing on the matter. SIGN PERMIT NO. 45 Mr. Jencks reviewed this request for a 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East sign reading "Marymount College Pre Applicant: Marymount Palos School" which does not conform to the Verdes College Code. He said although the location appears to be the best alternative, the sign exceeds the square footage re- quirement. It was staff's opinion that a sign of smaller area which would satisfy the intent of the Code would accomplish the same purpose. He said there is an existing sign which is legal adjacent to the subject sign on the same property frontage which describes the Institutional use of the site. Staff recommended denial of the application and removal of the sign, a re- duction in the size of the sign (which would bring it into conformance), or relocation of the sign to the face of the existing structure (which would bring the sign into conformance). He referred the Commission to photographs of the site. Joseph Metzger,A5520 West 190th, Torrance, said the pre-school was a separate entity from the college. He said they chose the location because it was easily viewed from the road. He said the purpose of the sign was to adver- tise the existence of this service which is a separate function. He said the sign was erected in June. ., abi ,Vr of th e, .0--e --aA a 04 Virginia WadeAsaid there were no other signs advertising this service and that it would be in the yellow pages of the phone book in October. Public participation was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe felt since this was an advertising sign rather than a direc- tional sign, there was no valid basis for exceeding the limits of the Sign Ordinance. The other Commissioners concurred. Mr. Hughes felt, however,'that it would be appropriate to allow the sign until October, when the service would be listed in the yellow pages. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny Sign Permit No. 45 and direct that the sign be either removed or brought into conformance with the Sign Code within 180 days. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised the applicant of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6548 Mr. Jencks said the request was for the Crestridge Rd. & Crenshaw Blvd. subdivision of a 34.4 acre parcel into Applicant: Palos Verdes Properties four lots. He said the property was 8/8/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- zoned both Institutional and Open Space Hazard, He reviewed the zoning of the surrounding properties and the topography of the site. He explained that the division was for the purpose of sale only. He said an environ- mental assessment for a development proposal for a convalescent home to be developed in two phases on both parcels 1 and 2 has been submitted. He said approval was previously given for the division of the property into two parcels, but that since none of the conditions were met, this approval has expired. He discussed project concerns of the staff re future grading on the site and the configuration of the lots. Staff recommended approval of the map subject to conditions as listed in the staff report. Mike Kochan, Assistant General Manager for Palos Verdes Properties, 811 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, briefly discussed the request. rejAreKsC4071;18 Ae- �uye^s, Lester M. Barron,/1909.Lucile Avenue, Los Angeles 90026, said the reason they wish to purchase the land as two separate lots was because they pro- pose to build the first phase of the project on half of the property and, if it were all one lot, the bank would hold title to all of the land and then would have to release the portion of land to be used for the second phase when they were ready to complete the project. He said it will take about two years to break even on the first phase, and that in the third year they would begin planning phase 2. He said they could not tie up the capital necessary to build the whole project at once. The Commission expressed concern about the proposed easement situation if the second phase were not built and the lot were sold. Mr. Barron indicated agreement to staff's recommendation for a flag lot instead. In response to other Commission questions, he said there would not be a medical staff and that a permit from the State was not required for a facility of this type. The Commission expressed some concern about this and asked staff to check into the State requirements. Mr. McTaggart felt with as little care as was proposed for the future resi- dents, it appeared to be a multiple unit building at a density of 50 dwel- ling units per acre. Mr. Hughes expressed concern about the adjacent micro -wave facility which may present potential health hazards and, therefore, may affect the pro- posed development. Public participation was closed. Mrs. Bacharach felt the condition requiring a geologic survey before any development approval should be noted on the final map. Mr. McTaggart asked if lot 4 was buildable under the current Codes. Mr. Weber said the topo analysis indicates that there is buildable area. Mr. McTaggart felt there may be a substantial amount of radiation for full- time -residents of a structure adjacent to the facility and that it may be considered significant. He said he would feel uncomfortable allowing a health care center on the subject site, and suggested a condition requiring a radiation study be made prior to approval. Mr. Weber said the parcel map was for sale of the lots only. He said al- though he shared the concern re radiation, he questioned whether this was the proper time to require radiation testing. He said whatever is finally developed there may not require it, and that this condition should be con- sidered when proposals for actual development are being considered. Dr. Brown felt they should obtain the opinion of the City Attorney re the way the ownership is proposed. Mike Kochan said a number of questions have been raised this evening and he, therefore, would request that the Commission postpone the matter to the next meeting. 8/8/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '3- Mr. Hughes said there was also some concern as to whether this type of facility falls under an Institutional category. Mr. Weber said he would check further. He pointed out that approval of the map had nothing to do with approval of the proposed development. Mr. McTaggart said he was concerned about the radiation and would like to place a condition on the subject site that if any residential -type develop- ment is placed on the site, it must be shown that the radiation level does not exceed the Russian standards. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued until such time as additional information can be presented to the Commission. At 9:00 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:08 p.m. with the same members present. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 5 Mr. Weber said the proposed revisions Height Variation Revisions are a result of the problems concern- ing interpretation and administration of the Height Variation section of the Code. He said the Council established a subcommittee to study potential revisions, and these revisions were presented to the Council on June 20, at which time the Council officially initiated the proposed Code Amendment. He said he had two concerns re the proposed wording. The first was on page 3, of the revisions, C.l. He felt "continueum" should be defined to avoid administration problems. On C.4. of the same page, line 5, he suggested the wording "...foundation or slab..." Staff recommended that the Commis- sion open the public hearing, take testimony, and discuss the proposed re- visions. At such time that the Commission wished to make a recommendation, staff would prepare the appropriate resolution. Public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak. It was noted that there was one formal written communication re this matter. The Commission was concerned that no one was in attendance, even though notice had been published and posted. They felt the matter was of a con- troversial nature and public input was desirable. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to the next meeting and staff was directed to submit a formal press release for publication prior to that meeting. The Commission indicated that although they agreed with the general proposed changes, they had some concerns with the language. In the first paragraph of the revisions, the Commission felt the phrase "including the basement, but excluding the cellar," should be deleted since the difference between basement and cellar was not clearly defined in the Code, and since it had no real bearing on the method of measurement for height. Under A.l., Mr. McTaggart felt it should read "...from an inside primary family living area..." He further felt there should be a more precise definition of view by defining what does not qualify as a view lot. His suggested wording was as follows: "A.11. A lot shall be considered a view lot unless view obstruction would occur from a structure which meets the other requirements of this Code and could be built or modified without variance within the zoning district in which it occurs." Under B., Mr. Hughes said it seems to -address only new structures. He felt it should read "...residence or addition to an existing residence..." and that this should be added throughout, where appropriate, so that it is clearly understood that additions as well as the construction of new resi- dences are covered by the Section. Re B.l.f., he felt a definition was needed of "terminal or dominant element or feature." 8/8/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Dr. Brown felt the words "neighborhood view or vista" should be eliminated from B.l.d. and f. He said view and vista are both defined, but neighbor- hood is not. He was concerned that this would raise the issue of compati- bility again. Mrs. Bacharach felt the ordinance should include view obstruction to parks and other similar public areas, not just private property. The Commission was concerned about B.l.d. re "cumulative effect" and dis- cussed whether or not the word "compatibility" in B.4. should remain. Mr. Hughes said privacy has been an issue raised as often as view obstruc- tion and felt perhaps that should also be included in the ordinance. Mrs. Bacharach concurred, adding that privacy was even a greater concern to her than view obstruction. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hinchliffe said the subcommittee re contractors has not met, and that he has not made much progress gathering information for the subcommittee to work with. ADJOURNMENT At 10:50 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, August 22, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. 0 8/8/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-