Loading...
PC MINS 197810240 0 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 24, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: Hinchliffe Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber and Assistant Planner Keith Turner. GRADING NO. 307 Mr. Turner indicated the project involves Lot 1, Tract 22909 (1 martingale) a combination retaining wall and slough Applicant: South Bay Engineering wall which is necessary to help stabi- Landowner: Mr. Horn lize a steep slope which has deteriorated partly as a result of the rains. He said due to the remedial nature of the proposal, staff did not review the plan according to the grading criteria set up in the Development Code. He reviewed statistics regarding the pro- posal, as listed in the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to the installation of planting between the existing stone wall and the pro- posed concrete block wall, to be approved by the Director of Planning. Dr. Brown said it appeared that the neighbor of the subject site was also having problems with a retaining wall. Mr. Turner said he was not aware of any problems of -the neighbor. Dan Bowling, 2625 Colt Road, contractor, representing the applicant, said they had a 2-3 week delay because of the time for processing the applica- tion. He said if there had been more rain, more problems could have been created. He wondered if the City had an emergency procedure. Mr. Hughes said the City does have emergency procedures. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, Grading Application No. 307 was approved subject to the condition that a landscaping plan, for the area between the existing stone wall and the proposed concrete block wall, be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning; said planting to be installed for the purpose of mitigating the visual impact of the proposed wall. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 42 Mr. Turner said the request was for the 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East construction of dormitory facilities Applicant/Landowner: Marymount and a common room on the Marymount Palos Verdes College College campus. He reviewed the loca- tion of the site, the slope, and the proposed structures, and said in addi- tion, the applicant was proposing 80 new parking spaces. He reviewed the project concerns as follows: traffic/parking, view obstruction, grading, and visual appearance. He said although lighting and landscaping will be discussed at a future date, staff would appreciate any concerns and input the Commission may have at this time. He referred to the chart which pre- sented the proposal as compared to Code standards with regard to various issues, as shown in'the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission open the -public -hearing, receive and consider testimony, discuss major con- cerns and issues, and give direction to the applicant. Dr. Brown asked from what point the proposed height of the structures was measured. Mr. Turner said the 24 feet was measured from the front facade. Sister Carol Brody, Marymount College, said the facility has occupied the present site since 1974. She said the projected enrollment was 400 students, and -that they are proposing to house 200 students on campus. She said stu- dents are currently housed at the Laurel Tree Apartments in San Pedro, which is in the process of converting to condominiums. She said they have ex- plored other alternatives, but this proposal seems the most beneficial to everyone. She pointed out it would allow for more night classes which the public could attend. She felt the on -campus housing would decrease vandalism and would be better for the students because it would allow them to practice their skills in budgeting, etc., in a more controlled atmosphere. She said that the traffic would be spread out and no longer concentrated at peak hours and that all of the students did not have cars. She said there were only 190 car permits on campus now, and that only 80 of the 211 students now living at the Laurel Tree have cars. She said the college now provides a van for transportation and would continue its use. she said they felt they would need more parking spaces because the cars would be stationary and no longer come and go for classes. Re increase in noise, she said the proposed common room would be for parties, etc., and would have good acoustics. She said they do not encourage or allow continuous parties. She said there are about six dances with bands per year. She said the housing would be primari- ly for the incoming freshmen, and that they wish it to be compatible in de- sign with the natural environment. She said their current class schedule was: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays, 8 or 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Fridays, plus one evening per week when classes go until 10 p.m. Dick Huddleson, architect, said they planned to minimize the grading and maximize the existing landscaping. He reviewed the location of the buildings and said they wished to buffer and screen the structures and parking area as much as possible. He said they plan to match the architectural design and materials. Re view obstruction, he said they would be willing to grade and drop the buildings to ensure they would not block views. He said grading could reduce the height from 4-6 feet. He did not wish to change to split level design as it would substantially increase the construction cost and square footage of the structures. Jack Quirk, attorney representing the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, which owns the property to the west, asked the setback from that property line. Mr. Huddleson said the setback was about 150 feet. Earle Casler, 3324 Narino Drive, said he was concerned about the height of building #1 because, as proposed, it would impact his view of Catalina and the channel. He requested the absoluteness of a bench mark. He felt a reduction in height would be beneficial for the view from the homes above as well as the road below. He said he would also be concerned about the height of any trees planted for the purpose of screening, as trees could also impact his view. Re a bench mark, Mr. Weber said the only way to be sure was to have a topo- graphic survey done. Robert Barry, 2804 San Ramon, said he understood the college was located on a large portion of landfill and he felt there should be a geology report to determine if the soil could carry the weight of the proposed structures. He said the original approval limited the school's enrollment to 200 stu- dents. He was concerned about any increase in security lighting as the existing lighting shines into his children's bedrooms. He was concerned about the noise from social events and said previous trees which were re- quired to screen the parking lots are still not high enough to accomplish their purpose. He said he was not opposed to the dormitories, just the problems they would create. Mr. Turner said current procedures require a geology and soils report, that it was an automatic condition of approval. Mr. McTaggart said they could make shielding the security lights a condi- tion of approval. 10/24/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Richard Mileham, 3316 Narino, was concerned about the height of building #1, in particular, and also the height of additional trees which -may obstruct - views. Patrick J. Hanlon, 3139 Dianora, was concerned about the increase in traffic and felt some consideration should be given to traffic control as they are continually having problems in the area which the sheriff cannot cope with at the present time. In addition, he said there are a lot of problems with the signal at Palos Verdes Drive East and Crest Road. He was concerned about the size of the -'installation in relationship to the surrounding neigh- borhood. Sister Brody said they do not plan to reduce security and do not anticipate extra lighting. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to a future meeting. RECESS At 9:25 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Weber said the existing conditional use permit (#9) did not indicate a limit on the number of students enrolled. Commission discussion ensued. Mrs. Bacharach said she agreed with staff -that the traffic would be reduced during peak hours. Dr. Brown agreed with the staff report, but said he would not be opposed to having the traffic condition reviewed by the Traffic Committee. Mr. McTaggart felt student employment would create traffic, but that housing on campus would decrease the traffic of students coming and going to class. He felt it was probably a trade-off and said he agreed with staff. Mr. Hughes said he agreed with the other members, but that one of the Traffic Committee members offered to do a study. Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff Drive, chairman of the Traffic Committee, said it would be a totally objective traffic study, dealing with vehicles on the thoroughfare, not law enforcement. He said they could call a special meet- ing and report back to the Planning Commission at its next meeting. Mr. McTaggart moved to accept the offer of the Traffic Committee to do a study. The Motion died for lack of a second. There was some discussion on how the motion should be worded. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously car- ried, the Planning Commission requested that the Traffic Committee study the area. Re view obstruction and grading, Dr. Brown agreed with staff's recommendation that the architect prepare a plan that involves grading for the purpose of lowering the height of building #1. He felt landscaping should be considered under view obstruction and suggested a species requirement in the conditions of approval. Mr. McTaggart felt building #1 and #6 were important re view obstruction, but that the two buildings visible from the Drive should also be graded into the hill. He also felt relocation of the structure should be explored. Mrs. Bacharach concurred. Mr. Hughes concurred with the previous comments and said he would like to see some analysis done. He was also concerned with steeply graded slopes and said the slopes should be as natural appearing as possible. He directed the architect to prepare some drawings in response to the Commission con- cerns, showing what the structure will look like. 10/'24/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Re visual appearance, Mrs. Bacharach was concerned that the project not look imposing from the Ganado area. She felt the grading would help. Re landscaping and lighting, Mr. McTaggart suggested that staff include in the conditions of approval that there be no lighting spill-over onto adjacent properties. Re parking, the Commission agreed with staff's recommendation. The item was continued until further input is available. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 43 Mr. Turner said the request was for a VARIANCE NO. 35 duplex. He discussed the zoning, lot Lot 3, Tract 28750 (Highridge size, and the project. He said a and Peacock Ridge Roads) variance was required because the lot Applicant/Landowner: Joe Anthony size does not conform to the minimum requirement in the Code. He reviewed staff's analysis of the four required findings and said staff recommended approval of the variance based on the ability to make all of the findings. He reviewed the Code considerations, referred to the Code comparison chart in the staff report, and said the project would also require a minor exception for the front setback. He said staff had no concerns re view obstruction or grading. Staff recom- mended that the Commission approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution. He amended Section 5 of the draft resolution to read "That such variance is necessary because there are..." Re condition #14, he said the "restricted use area" was something the County placed on the property at the time of subdivision. He said the overall height, when measured from the lowest part to the highest point, was 29 feet. Public hearing was opened. Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff Drive, representing the applicant, said they were in complete agreement with the staff report. He said they tried to give the project a single family design and that the structure would rise five feet above the property behind it ---that the ridgeline would be at the adjoining propertyl.s fence line. Mike Leming, 6542 Ocean Crest, was concerned that rental units would run down the neighborhood. He was also concerned about the height of the pro- posed project. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Turner said there was an important condition left out re a requirement for a bond for the street improvements to the center line of Highridge Road,. directly adjacent to the subject property, pursuant to the street standards study. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to approve Vari- ance No. 35 based on the following findings: A. That such a variance is necessary because there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in -the same zoning district because all other lots or ownership patterns of lots which were part of General Plan Amendment No. 2 in this area are capable of being developed with multiple family structures. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district because for all practical purposes the zone change does not enable the owner of this lot to develop a multiple family structure whereas the owners of the other parcels could. 10/24/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located because of the nature of its design. D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the ob- jectives of the General Plan because the pro3ect is compatible with the development pattern of the area and would tend to serve as a transitional use from an aesthetic standpoint. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 78-47, with the amendment to Section 5 as suggested by Mr. Turner, granting Variance No. 35 and Conditional Use Permit No. 43, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", amended as follows: a) Add condition #15 re bonding for street improvement, as suggested by Mr. Turner. b) Add condition #16, that a ridgeline height be established and adhered to. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber distributed to the Commission copies of a proposed conflict of interest code. He said if the Commission had any comments, they should submit them prior to the second Council meeting in November, as the Council will be reviewing it at that time. Mr. Weber said Mr. Iacono called and said the lights and windscreens would be installed today. He said he would contact Mr. Hughes when he hears back from Mr. Iacono and arrange a time when two or less of the Commissioners can accompany staff for a site inspection. Mr. Turner asked if the Commission wished staff to do any more research be- fore the October 25 work session on retirement facilities. The Commission discussed that they had been contacted by Mr. Cummings and invited to look at his existing facility. Mrs. Bacharach said she would be unable to attend the work session. Re items for discussion, the Commission listed the following: 1) Home Health Care 2) The type of licensing available 3) Licensing versus non -licensing 4) Was this type of facility really needed ---what is the demand 5) Review of contract agreement between the facility and the residents 6) Density 7) Formula for impact on the community re traffic 8) Can current applicant accept only Episcopalians 9) Can the City allow this type of discrimination 10/24/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown asked about the Brunning project. Mr. Turner said he received a letter responding to the City's letter ad- vising of the time limits. He said the applicant indicated they would be submitting soon. Mr. Hughes said he would be attending the November 7 Council meeting, at which the Holtzman appeal would be heard. Mr. Hughes asked about Porto Verde. Mr. Weber said he understood that the City would be receiving a letter of withdrawal. Mr. McTaggart said 4537 Abbottswood Drive was a continuing problem with the construction in the rear. He said they are parking construction vehicles on the site and that the wall has,/been backfilled. He asked staff to check into it. Mr. Hughes suggested a pamphlet be made available for prospective residents of the City, informing them of what they can and cannot do with their property. The Commission discussed the City Council's suggestion for a joint meeting. The suggested meeting date is November 29, or November 15 as an alternative ADJOURNMENT At 11:30 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Wednesday, October 25, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. 10/24/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-