Loading...
PC MINS 1978101211 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 12, 1978 E (Gcl) The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planners Keith Turner and Charlie Jencks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of Septem- ber 26, 1978, were approved with the following amendment: page 4, last paragraph, line 4, should read "...meeting of August, 1977, there was..." On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of September 28, 1978, were approved as submitted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 36 Mr. Weber said at the work session of 30421 Miraleste Drive September 28 the Commission and staff Applicant/Landowner: Frank Iacono visited the Iacono residence and three homes which view over the tennis court to observe the effect of the lights -on nighttime views. He said the site inspection revealed no view obstruction to any distant scene, as the harbor lights were distinct and unblocked by the new lights, although a secondary canyon view was almost totally ob- structed from the rear yard of the Pierce residence. He said the inspection revealed some off-site illumination and reflected glare. He said the "halo effect" was clearly evident, but that this condition in no way obstructed the views. The area which generated the greatest staff concern related to visual character. In staff's opinion, a lighted tennis court in this speci- fic location was disruptive and not in character with th6 surrounding neigh- borhood. He presented photographs to the Commission. Staff recommended denial of the request. Mr. Weber said although there may be ways to reduce the impact, in staff's opinion nothing would eliminate the impact. Public hearing was opened. Frank Iacono said he would like to be able to occasionally use the court after work, although not every night. He said he did not need the lights this time of year, but after the time change it will be dark when he gets home. He said he would be putting windscreens up and would install more fencing if the Commission desired. He said the height of the fixtures was 16 feet instead of the 22 feet used for most commercial courts. He said he was using the same wattage bulbs, which are 1000 watts. He said he would be willing to use a.different wattage and limit the hours of lighting. Burt Dulac, 41 Avenida Corona, said during the site inspection, he felt the effect was not as bad as he had expected. However, he said the effect was significant when the lights went out, as there was such a difference. He said he also viewed the lights from his neighbor's house above him and that the harbor lights were lost. He said the effect was much worse higher up. William Pollard, 40 Avenida Corona, said there was a tremendous difference at the house above; it was like a sheet of light. He said there was also illumination of the trees. Ed Strickland, 39 Avenida Corona, said he did not see the lights when they were turned on, but he felt the court lighting on Palos Verdes Drive East destroyed the whole area and was concerned that these lights had the same effect. Dr. Brown asked Mr. Strickland's opinion of controlling the hours. Mr. Strickland felt that would probably be the most realistic approach. He felt 9:00 p.m. might be an appropriate time limit. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart felt the illumination from 1000 watt bulbs was excessive and would vastly change the lifestyle of the area. He felt if the hours were controlled, 400 watt fixtures were used, and windscreens were installed, the problems may be sufficiently mitigated. He said he would be in favor of a trial period before the conditional use permit became effective. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would be willing to work with the applicant to see what measures could be taken to mitigate the problem. He agreed with reducing the wattage in the fixtures and limiting the hours. Mrs. Bacharach felt it was important to evaluate the effect after the wind- screens were in place. She pointed out that the lights did not stand out as -much as the pictures indicated. Dr. Brown felt the lights were excessive and did disrupt the quality of life in the area. He was willing to explore different mitigation measures, but felt the City may not be able to effectively control the hours. He agreed that reduced wattage and windscreens would be helpful. Mr. Hughes said there were visible halo effects and that it all appeared to be reflective light off the court. He felt reduced wattage and limited hours might go a long way to reduce the light impact. The Commission discussed continuing the matter until reduced wattage and windscreens were installed so that staff and the Commissioners could re- evaluate the effect of the lights with those changes. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the time limit for decision on the project. Mr. Weber said they must make a decision before the end of the year. It was the consensus of the Commission that the present lighting was too bright and the Commission could not make findings for approval. Mr. Hughes asked the applicant if he would be willing to reduce the wattage in the fixtures and install the windscreens to allow staff and the Commission to re-evaluate before reaching a decision. Mr. Iacono said he would be willing to reduce the wattage and said the wind- screens could probably be up in 2-3 weeks. Mr. Hughes pointed out that due to the time limit, this must be done as soon as possible. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, this item was continued to a future date. Mr. Weber said he would need at least two weeks to set up a time to do some preliminary research and for the developing time for the photos. He said the weather may also present a problem. Mr. Hughes advised the applicant to contact staff tomorrow and set up a time schedule. He asked staff to notify the Commission when the time schedule was worked out so that some of the Commissioners could accompany staff on the site inspection. Mr. Weber said he would send agendas to all residents within 500 feet prior to the next meeting at which this item will be considered. Mr. McTaggart said he would like the and conditions of approval included, granted. surrounding neighbors to be noticed, if the conditional use permit is 10/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- GRADING APPLICATION NO. 300 Mr. Weber said the request was for the Lot 32, Tract 25376 (Grandpoint) construction of a two-story residence Applicant: Gary Petch on a flag lot, with access taken from Grandpoint Lane up a common access/ driveway. He reviewed the total average slope, total square footage of the lot, and said all of the proposed grading was centered around the rear garage area on slopes of 35 percent or greater. He referred to the plans. Staff was of the opinion that the requested grad- ing was not excessive and that the subject proposal minimized the impact to the site and left nearly all of the steep slope areas in an undisturbed state. Staff recommended approval without conditions. There was no one present in the audience to speak on the matter. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 300 was approved without conditions. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 305 Mr. Weber said the request is for sub - Tentative Tract No. 33034 stantial revisions to the conceptual Calle de Suenos grading plan which was approved by the Applicant/Landowner: Herbert Angel Commission on July 12, 1977, for the subject tract. He said during the re- view process the Commission was con- cerned about the lack of coordination with an overall development plan and view obstruction. In response to those concerns, he said the applicant was required to develop a grading plan which would provide the coordinated ap- proach and mitigate view obstruction from the impacted homes. He said the Commission conceptually approved a plan which includes grading for the road and creates building pads. In addition to the plan, he said one of the con- ditions of approval of the conditional use permit restricted the ridgelines of all structures on lots 1, 2, and 3 to not exceed an elevation of 564 feet above sea level. He said similar wording was required and has been incor- porated into the CC&Rs. He said the revised plans include grading for the roadway only. He referred to drawings illustrating both the approved con- ceptual plans and the proposed revisions. In staff's opinion, the revision would not adversely impact the intent of the tentative map or conditional use permit. Staff recommended approval of Grading Application No. 305, which is a revised grading plan for the road only. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Weber said each individual lot in the subdivision can be approached differently and built separately from any of the others. Herb Angel, 4373 Dauntless Drive, answered questions of the Commission. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about the future buyers of lots 1, 2, and 3 and wondered if the language in the CC&Rs adequately stated the limitations for construction on those lots. Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliffe Drive, responded to some Commission questions. He said grading for the emergency access would be a part of the landscaping plan which is sub3ect to staff approval. He said they were concerned with overgrading. He felt the City would have better control by reviewing architectural plans and a coordinated grading plan. Mr. Weber said staff could require a topographical survey before construc- tion on the three lots to determine the elevation. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about approving a tentative map with a res- triction on three lots which does not permit the buyer to build a 16 -foot home. He felt 2-3 feet should be graded off the lots. Mr. McTaggart said the restriction was not intended to limit anyone to a 14 -foot house, only to prevent view obstruction. He did not feel there would be any problem. Mr. Hughes felt the merits of leaving the lots ungraded exceeded the merits of grading now. 10/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve Grading Application No. 305 without conditions. Vote on the above motion was as follows: RECESS AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None At 9:13 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 41 Mr. Turner said this request was for a VARIANCE NO. 34 retirement care -facility. He described Crestridge Raod the project site, its location, and the Landowner/Applicant: Episcopal Home proposed structures. He said the vari- ance requests were for side and rear property setbacks for carports, required number of enclosed parking spaces, total number of parking spaces, and also a parking space encroaching into the front setback. He reviewed the project considerations, including density, and distributed information to the Commis- sion re different levels of care. He referred to the chart in the staff re- port which listed Code requirements and proposals with regard to various standards of the Development Code and corrected the chart as follows: the Code required covered parking spaces should be "152", instead of "150." Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take input, discuss ma3or issues, and give direction to --the applicant. Dr. Brown asked if the traffic statistics shown were from 1976. Mr. Turner said those were the latest statistics available. Public hearing was opened. Reverend George Cummings, The Episcopal Home, said there was a tremendous need for this kind of facility. Claude Senefeld, architect, said through the years his office has done many retirement homes. He distributed information to the Commission re other facilities of this type. He said what dictated the design for this pro]ect were all -.the restrictions on this site. He discussed all the easements on the site, including a sewer easement down the center of the lot. He said they could eliminate the encroachment into the front setback. He said the reason for carports was because older people have difficulty with garage doors, that they represent a safety hazard. He said if necessary, they would add doors. Mr. Hinchliffe asked the criteria for applying to live in the proposed home. Reverend Cummings said the basic restrictions were a minimum age, minimum number of meals per week, and that they must move to a higher level of care on the recommendation of the committee, which would be made up of a doctor, a nurse, an administrator, and some representation from the residents of the facility. He said they would show preference to Episcopalians. He said a visiting nurse would be provided through a Home Health Agency. He said they try to maintain the status of individual living; that it is a unique type facility and a unique idea. In response to Commission questions, Reverend Cummings said 1) they were proposing that some of the people would have their own kitchen facilities; 2) that there would be a Home Health Agency within the complex which would be licensed; and 3) that 150 units were for economic reasons, as they would still have the same overhead costs with 100 units. He said there would be one nurse on duty 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. Richard Shepherd, 31 Aspen, Rolling Hills Estates, said it sounded more like an apartment complex. He wondered if this was a viable situation for the 10/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- aged. He said the carports would be very visible to the residents of the Terraces and that there was also a significant difference in the densities of the complex and the Terraces. He felt there should be some similarity between adjoining properties. He was also concerned about landscaping and felt the architectural design was not consistent with any of the adjoining structures. He felt because of the lack of nearby businesses; stores,. --etc., the residents would need cars. He was also concerned about future lighting of the site, smoke, smell, and garbage. Arthur Schoenfeld, member of the Congregation Ner Tamid, said he was speak- ing on his own behalf. He felt there was a need for homes for the aged, but was concerned about landscaping between the Temple and this site. Mr. Senefeld said the site would be fully landscaped and that they wish it to be compatible with the neighborhood. He said they would give full co- operation. Mrs. Bacharach asked if they were planning to have a van to transport the residents, and what the cost would be to live in the facility. Reverend Cummings said they were thinking about using a van. He said the average age of the residents was 83-85 years. He said the cost to live in the facility would be from $550-650 per month. Mr. Senefeld said some of the facilities have a 5-15 year waiting list. Bob Allen, Palos Verdes Estates, said this was the only one of the four cities which had set aside zoning for facilities like this. He felt they were very necessary and that there was a real interest for elderly people who don't want to leave the Hill. He hoped the Commission would give the request favorable consideration. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was Dr. Brown felt the 1976 traffic statistics were misleading and inaccurate. He said he lived near the site and the traffic has increased considerably since that study and that the completion of the churches will further in- crease the traffic. He felt this should be looked at carefully. He pointed out that there was not a good public transportation system on the Hill. He felt the facility, as proposed, represents high density. He felt facilities for the aged were needed but only in appropriate locations. Mr. McTaggart agreed that the facility would generate more traffic with visitors, medical personnel coming and going, and purveyors bringing items to the facility. Mrs. Bacharach was concerned about what licensing meant in terms of enforce- ment and regulations. She wondered if licensing protected the City in any way. Mr. Turner said he spoke with the Department of Social Services, and that monitoring occurs once a year, upon re-application for licensing. Mrs. Bacharach felt there was a definite need for this type facility, but did not feel there was enough landscaping or buffering proposed. She ex- pressed concern about the 30 -foot perimeter driveway and requested informa- tion on lighting. Mr. McTaggart said they don't have any building heights at -this point. He felt the density issue should be addressed. He wondered if there were too many units proposed for this property and if the facility would block views. He said a two-story structure would reduce the density and reduce the poten- tial for view obstruction. He said a center island could help with some of the traffic on the street. He did not feel this facility could be compared to any of the others, as some are 13 stories high. He felt they should stick to the Code as far as buffering. Mr. Hinchliffe said density and the nature He was also concerned about the potential traffic generation, and compatibility with of the facility were his concerns. future of this facility, height, the neighborhood. 10/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mr. Hughes said the project identifies itself as a facility to meet the needs of the community. He was concerned that this type of facility may not really fullfill those needs. He said he would like some guarantee that the applicant would be responsive to the needs of the community and that it is not placing an unfair hardship on the people in the area. He said he did not want the structures to block views, create noise, or in any way be a nuisance generator. Mr. Hughes summarized as follows: 1. Staff is to bring additional input on State licensing --what is in- volved and what it means to the City. 2. Commission would like an initial view analysis ---what view impacts there may be from the various types of structures. 3. Commission would like traffic information ---re problems with speed, traffic generation when church construction is completed, what im- pacts new development traffic would have. 4. Commission would like a density comparison. Dr. Brown said they were also concerned about landscaping, setbacks, and view obstruction. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested looking at the footprint coverage to see how that compares with the density ratio. Mr. Hughes requested that staff ask the City Attorney if the Commission could require a certain percentage of the residents of the facility to be residents of the area. He also asked that the applicant give some assurance that the facility will remain as the same use, as should this venture fail, the Commission did not wish the complex to become 150 bachelor units. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, this item was continued until further input was received by staff. RECESS At 10:50 p.m. a brief recess was called. The Commission reconvened at 11:00 p.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 44 Mr. Jencks said this request was for 5448 Crest Road parking lot and driveway lighting. He Applicant/Landowner: Roman Catholic reviewed the surrounding properties Archbishop of Los Angeles, and their elevation differences and St. John Fisher Church, described the proposed lighting fixtures. Vincent D. Barret, Pastor He said the primary concern was the im- pact the subject lighting would have on adjacent uses. He said the subject lights were expected to impact surrounding adjacent uses and that lighting on standards of 30 feet in height would be difficult to shield and/or align so that direct viewing and off-site illumination are eliminated from these areas. He suggested five suitable mitigation measures to ameliorate those impacts, as listed in the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditioning, as specified in the staff report. Public hearing was opened. Father Bill McClain, representing the applicant, said they were concerned with replacing what was damaged by the storms, conserving energy, the safety of 150 school children, and eliminating the problem of vandalism. He said they shared the concerns of staff, as expressed in the recommended mitiga- tion measures, but felt perhaps there were alternatives. Richard L. Cooper, General Electric representative, said the fixtures selected were not normal street lighting fixtures. He said they were de- signed for optimum efficiency of energy with optical control to avoid spill light. He said lowering the poles would go against what they are trying to accomplish, as the lower the pole the wider the beam spread must be in order 10/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- to light the given area. He said another alternative would be to have more poles which would cost a lot more money. He said the lamp was selected be- cause it gives less glare and, with the proposed lay -out, there would be a minimum amount of light off the parking lot. He said the color of the bulb was the same as those on Century Boulevard. He said there should not be too much of a halo effect with this type bulb. Roger Rogers, 28908 Crestridge Road, felt the lighting would not affect any- one in the area because of the elevations and the buildings on the church property. He felt there would be no direct viewing and that the lighting would not be offensive. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown said there was no doubt that the church must get some decent light- ing in the parking lot. However, he was concerned about the type of lighting and felt there would be -some problems with the viewing of the lights. He agreed with staff's concerns and felt 30 -foot poles were too high. Mr. McTaggart felt the residents of Urban West would see the lights if the poles were 3 feet high. He felt staff's suggestion for shielding or align- ment was good. He did not feel the height of the fixtures in this case was really important. He suggested intensive landscaping along the parking lot. Mr. Cooper said this fixture was designed to cut off light at the edge of the parking lot and that there was no spill over. Mr. Hughes felt the spill over would be minimal. He said the lights would be seen, but so are street lights; however, he did not like yellow light and felt it was out of place. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the lights proposed would do the job and mitigate the concerns expressed by the Commission. He said he agreed with staff's recommendations except that he would eliminate the shielding and eliminate lowering the standards. Mrs. Bacharach said she was still concerned about direct viewing from Urban West. Jerry Gotten, neighboring resident, said the only way one can see the light source is by standing in the parking lot. Father McClain said during standard time the lights would be on at the fol- lowing hours: weekdays from 4-10:30 p.m., Saturday from 4-9:30 p.m., and Sunday from 4-8 p.m. He said they would make adjustments during daylight savings time so that the lights would be turned off at the same time, but would be turned on at a later time. Mr. Cooper felt it would be very expensive to accomplish staff's recommended mitigation measure #5 because they would have to cut through the driveway. Mr. Jencks said a solution would be to use an incandescent standard, low profile. He said the object was to light the driveway and that the pro- posed fixtures at 3 feet in height were not necessary. Mr. Hinchliffe did not feel trenching across the driveway would be that much of a cost, as they would have to go across anyway. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt Resolution No. 78-46, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 44, subject to the following conditions: 1. That elimination of direct viewing of the proposed fixtures and off- site illumination be reduced through alignment of the fixtures. The Director of Planning shall be notified within thirty (30) days of implementing this measure for inspection purposes. 2. That on the Crenshaw Boulevard driveway the ingress and egress lights shall be located on the south side. 3. That a lighting/timing schedule be submitted for the lights which shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. 10/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- • Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach,-Brown, NOES: None ABSENT: None COMMISSION REPORTS 0 Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Cooper for infor- mation regarding tennis court lighting. Mr. Cooper said for adequate lighting the minimum number of poles would be 4, but that most tennis courts used 6 poles. He said the wattage most generally used was from 150-400 watts. Co-op Moratorium In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower discussed the ur- gency ordinance and said it would be in effect for four months. She explained the process of adopting standards for co-ops to the Commission. Porto Verde Convalescent Homes a work session for October 25 at ADJOURNMENT Director Hightower reported that this item would be on the agenda of the Commission's first meeting in November. The Commission felt they should estab- lish some standards for this type of development. They tentatively scheduled 7:30 p.m. At 12:48 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, October 24, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. 10/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-