Loading...
PC MINS 197811146 6 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting November 14, 1978 Al2-) -7 -2/ 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 Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Assistant Plan- ner Keith Turner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of October 12, 1978, were approved with the following amendment: page 5, 7th complete paragraph, last line, should read "...public hearing was continued." On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mr. Hinchliffe abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of October 24, 1978, were approved with the following amendment: page 6, paragraph 5, line 3, should read "...wall has not been..." On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mrs. Bacharach and Mr. Hinchliffe abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of October 25, 1978, were approved as presented. I TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32744 Director Hightower reviewed the back - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16 ground of this request, pointing out Porto Verde Apartments that it was last considered by the Applicant: CFPV Associates Commission at its meeting of August 23, 1977. She explained that due to the recent time limits established by State law, a decision is required on this application by December 31, 1978, unless a 90 -day extension is granted. She said the applicant has chosen not to supply the additional information requested by the Commission last year, but instead -requested an extension. She discussed the reasons for an extension, as presented by the applicant and said, in staff's opinion, the only possible reason for an extension would be on the condition that the applicant immedi- ately prepare revised plans and submit all necessary information so that the Commission could consider the conversion early in January, noting that the item must also go before the Council for decision prior to the deadline. Staff recommended denial of the 90 -day extension and two alternatives for denial of the conditional use permit and recommendation for denial of the tentative tract map, as stated in the staff report. Re the change of applicants, Mr. McTaggart asked if it was a different appli- cant or the same entity with a different name. John Tretheway, 1 Cinnamon Lane, attorney representing the applicant, said it was the same group of people, just a different name. He said his client had asked him to inform the Commission that he was in -agreement with the staff report re the 90 -day extension and wished to withdraw that request. He said the reasons for his failure to supply the information requested at the last meeting was due to the loss of the 32 acre parcel which was to be included as part of the project. He explained that without that property, they lacked the ability to comply with the requirements, particularly the parking. He said if the property becomes available again, it would then be possible for them to proceed with the request; therefore, the applicant would prefer denial without prejudice. Mr. Hughes said although the public hearing on this matter had been closed over a year ago, anyone in the audience with pertinent information or con- cerns re the condominium conversion was invited to speak. Michael Bradley, 6600 Beachview, #336, was opposed to the requested condo- minium conversion. He said he had originally been interested in purchasing one or more of the units but that due to the physical problems with the complex which he felt were being cosmetically corrected, -he was no longer interested. He said the units were still suffering from leakage. ,All e -r Carlton 44e4v;e­r, 6568 Beachview, was opposed to the project. He said several of his friends have been asked to move from the complex because they had - made complaints. Ted Grover, #311, said he shared the opinion expressed by the previous speakers. He was also concerned about the attitude of the present manage- ment towards the tenants. Mr. Hughes explained that on the advise of the City Attorney, Dr. Brown and Mr. Hinchliffe would abstain from voting since they were not members of the Commission during the public hearings. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to deny the request for a 90 -day extension and adopt Resolution No. 78-48, thereby deny- ing Conditional Use Permit No. 16 and recommending to the City Council denidl of Tentative Tract Map No. 32744, without prejudice, due to the lack of re- quested information within the time limits of State requirements. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSTAIN: Brown, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 5 Director Hightower said the public Height Variation Revisions hearing had been continued. She said the letter from the City Attorney which had been distributed to the Commission this evening was received this day. She said it contained several suggested changes to the draft. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was re -opened. No one present wished to speak on the matter. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart moved that, due to the late hour which the City Attorney's letter was received, a work session be scheduled one week from today to take up this matter. The motion was withdrawn. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, this item was moved to the end of tonight's agenda, under Commission Reports, at which time the Commission would discuss it or schedule another meeting date. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 36 Mr. Turner reviewed the background of 30421 Miraleste Drive this request and said that following Landowner/Applicant: Frank Iacono modifications as suggested by the Com- mission at the October 12 meeting, a second site inspection to determine the effects of the lights was conducted on October 30 by staff and two Commissioners. He said the modifications included replacing the 1000 watt bulbs with 400 watt bulbs and the installation of windscreens on the chain link fences. He said an evaluation of the modified project showed no view obstruction of primary views, a substantial reduction of off-site illumina- tion, about a 50 percent reduction in reflected glare, and a reduction of the "halo effect." He said although the modifications reduce the overall 11/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- 0 0 1 impact of the lights, staff was still of the opinion that a lighted c6lift" was not in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Although visual character was still a staff concern, staff recommended approval of the project since the modifications made to the lights and the installation of windscreens seem to mitigate the primary impacts discussed by the Commission at the October 12 meeting. Mr. McTaggart said he felt there was a greater than 50 percent reduction in reflected glare. He said the effects were significantly reduced. Mr. Hinchliffe said there was a substantial change but felt there was still a noticeable amount of light and that it was out of character. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the applicant was aware of and agreed to the proposed conditions. Mr. Iacono said he agreed with the recommended conditions. Burt Dulac, 41 Avenida Corona, said he had no objections, provided the con- ditions in Exhibit "A" were part of the approval. He asked about the pro- cedure if there was any variation from what was approved. Director Hightower said if the conditions were not met the conditional use permit could be voided. F Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt Reso- lution No. 78-49, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 36, subject to the conditions as listed in Exhibit "A". Dr. Brown was concerned about enforcing the hours of operation and asked what would happen if the property was sold. Director Hightower said the conditional use permit runs with the land and any new owner would be bound by the same conditions. She said a new owner buys the conditions along with the property. The Commission discussed the possibility of requiring vegetation and of a trial period or review within a specified period of time; however, the majority of the Commissioners did not feel these should be conditions of approval. Mr. McTaggart proposed amending his previous motion by changing condition #4 of Exhibit "A" to read "Windscreens kept in good condition shall be re- quired for all nighttime play." Mrs. Bacharach agreed to the proposed amend- ment. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 41 Mr. Turner said some of the issues at VARIANCE NO. 34 the meeting of October 12 were ad- Crestridge Road dressed in the revised plan and revised Landowner/Applicant: Episcopal Home proposal. He reviewed those revisions. He said after that meeting the County was instructed to set traffic counters at both ends of Crestridge. He reviewed the results and said staff felt the issue should be dropped from further discussion. He reviewed the parking issue and corrected the staff report to read there were 1155" garage spaces proposed. He said since the facility will be securing licensing, assessment may be done with a different set of standards. He said staff analyzed the project from a "person per acre" standpoint and felt comfortable with the density as proposed. To ensure and increase the community benefit, staff anticipated developing a condition to deal with a Rancho Palos Verdes or 11/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- South Bay residency requirement as well as other conditions. Staff felt the applicant should be instructed to lower the structures as far as possi- ble to reduce impacts, as a preliminary view analysis from several residences on Mistridge identified some minor conflicts. Re grading, he said maximum cut would be approximately 17 feet, maximum fill would be approximately 10 feet, and that there were no major created slopes proposed. Staff was not prepared to respond to any of the issues related to visual appearances (lighting, landscaping, exterior building materials, etc.) at this time, but he noted that they are easily controlled. Staff recommended that the Commission continue to discuss major issues and continue to take testimony from the public, so as to give direction to the applicant. Claude Senefeld, Fullerton, architect, said review of 40 other retirement homes revealed a figure of 1.08 persons per apartment. He said they never use the amount of garage spaces required. Re grading, he said they have made every effort and felt they have done all that can be done on the site, considering all of the easements. He said the facilities used for compari- son were all similar in design. Joseph Ragozino, 5725 Mistridge, said his backyard was used for some of the photographs. He said he has a beautiful panoramic view and there would be some view obstruction, which would reduce the value of his home. He did not feel the staff photos showed how significant the obstruction would be. He was opposed to the view obstruction and the proposed density and was con- cerned that the lighting would reflect into his back bedroom. He said he was not opposed to the facility, only to the proposed design and its impacts. John Er -4: , 5731 Mistridge, expressed concern about view obstruction, lighting, the accuracy of the topographic plan, and the structures themselves. He said Crestridge was a speedway now and could present a safety problem for older drivers. ku-174 Mrs.-Frr-tft, 5731 Mistridge, said she would prefer a two-story structure, was concerned about the density, the appearance of the structures, and the amount of open space. Dave Moss, 30 Aspen Way, Rolling Hills Estates, stated concerns about the visual appearance, the height and size of the structures. Ed Koch, 5671 Mistridge, said there was concern expressed about the height, parking, etc., of the Church and Temple on Crestridge, and the variances were granted. He said the height of the Church was not what they expected it would be and the lighting on the Temple had no shielding. Marshall Kline, 5705 Mistridge, concurred with the previous speakers. His main concern was re traffic on Crestridge. He felt the traffic and parking were excessive and said U-turns were being abused. Bert Sorenson, 5677 Mistridge, felt the lighting for this development was an important issue and said he shared the previously mentioned concerns re the Temple lighting. George Cummings, Executive Director of the Episcopal Home, said they were working under a time limit and must have a decision by December 15 in order to proceed with the pro3ect. Mr. Senefeld said the building would not be lighted, that there would only be low lighting along the sidewalks. e - Joan Fre-idman, 13 Seacove, said the average age of the residents at the Alhambra facility, which she visited, was over 80 and that their life was in the home; therefore, the only traffic would come -from people visiting the facilities, not the residents themselves. She felt visitor traffic would not occur during morning or evening commutor traffic hours or early Sunday mornings when there is church traffic. She said older people would represent an asset to the community. Marion Rustin, 30009 Avenida Elegante, felt the facility would be a great asset to the community. 11/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Marilyn Slater, 6540 Madeline Cove, also felt the facility would be an asset and an attractive addition to the community. She felt this type facility was good for those many people who still want independent living. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. RECESS At*9:50 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. with the same members present. Commission discussion ensued. The Commission began with the issues which generated the major concerns. View Obstruction - The Commission -was concerned about the accuracy of the topographic map and wished to have that question resolved. It was the con- sensus of the Commission to have some kind of view analysis done showing 24 -foot, 27 -foot, and 30 -foot ridgelines, and perhaps moving the highest ridgeline to another location on the site. They also requested some accurate information on the elevation differences. Mr. Turner said they could use the City maps using 25 -foot contour lines, which were very accurate. Traffic - It was the consensus of the Commission that there would be no problems with traffic, as the increase would be insignificant. Parking - It was the consensus of the Commission that there would be no problems with the number of spaces provided. Mr. Hughes directed staff to check with the City Attorney and explore what possibilities were available, such as limiting the number of resident cars to the number of covered garage spaces. Density - Mrs. Bacharach asked if there would still be a Home Health Agency on the site. Reverend Cummings said not if they were licensed for "community care." He said people living in the facility would be able to manage themselves fairly well, that if they were non-ambulatory they would not be able to stay at the facility. He said there may be 25 people employed during the day, and per- haps two night watchmen. He said all units would have kitchen facilities. Mrs. Bacharach, Mr. Hinchliffe, and Mr. Hughes felt comfortable with the proposed density and could see no major impacts. They felt there would be no effect on schools, roadways, or shopping centers, etc. They felt this facility could not be compared to an apartment complex because this facility would create lesser burdens on the City. Dr. Brown and Mr. McTaggart were not comfortable with the proposed density and felt there would be impacts with noise, traffic, services, etc. They felt there would be many impacts on the surrounding residents. The consensus of the Commission was that the existing proposed density may be tempered or modified by what comes out of the view impact study, as if the structures were reduced in size, the density would be decreased. Benefit to Community - The Commission felt that the residency requirement should be 50 percent instead of 20 percent as suggested by the City Attorney. They felt since any impacts which may result would affect the community, the applicant should see that the community is benefited in some way. It was the consensus of the Commission to-a'sk the applicant to present to the Commission some kind of proposal offering assurance that some priority would be given to residents of 1) the Peninsula and 2) the South Bay area. Reverend Cummings said he did not know whether they could accept that kind of condition, as normally preference is given to members of the sponsoring agency, which in this case is the Episcopal Home. He said he would get back to the Commission re --this matter. 11/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Grading - It was the consensus of the Commission that although lowering the structures would result in more grading, they would prefer that to having view obstruction. Visual Appearance - Staff is to develop a list of goals regarding landscaping and lighting to which the applicant shall respond; to be submitted to the Commission at the next meeting. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the item was continued to the next meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 42 Mr. Turner reviewed the revised plans 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East and the issues which were discussed at Applicant/Landowner: Marymount the last meeting. He said with the Palos Verdes College lowering of the buildings and the slight shifting of one of the buildings, staff had no concerns with view obstruction. With the structures now proposed to be cut into the grade, with proper treat- ment of the 3:1 fill slope, and with screening vegetation, the visual impact is greatly reduced. He said staff will also require the applicant to submit exterior building materials for approval. He reviewed a list of objectives, as shown in the staff report, re landscaping and lighting. He said the traffic analysis indicated no traffic problems. A further revision to the plans is the addition of four units, proposed to house the supervisors. He said each unit would be occupied by one supervisor and staff had no concerns with this proposal. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit subjdct to the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Public hearing was re -opened. Dick Huddleson, architect, said they lowered the buildings and tried to do it in as natural a way as possible. He referred to plans which showed com- parisons of elevations. He said they did not lower building #6 any further; it had already been cut into the grade in the previous plans. He presented a piece of roofing material and a sample of the color of the building to the Commission. Earl Casler, 3324 Narino, said the college trimmed the trees after the last meeting and that quite a bit of view has been restored. He was still con- cerned with the placement of building #1. Robert Barry, 3804 San Ramon, was concerned about operating hours of the school, rules for the students, use of the tennis court, and lighting. Director Hightower said there were no lights on the tennis court now and none were proposed. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. The following change was made to the list of criteria for landscaping and lighting, as shown in the staff report: B. Landscape materials should not have a potential growth height or be so dense as to cause view obstruction. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt Reso- lution No. 78-50, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 42, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", with the following amendments: - Resolution, paragraph 1, line 2, should read "...a 54 unit..." - Exhibit "A", condition #9, should read "A landscaping plan, using the criteria shown in the staff report of November 14, 1978, shall be submitted..." Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None 11/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- I Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen days. COMMISSION REPORTS Re the joint meeting with the City Joint Meeting with City Council Council, scheduled for November 29, Mr. Hughes said anyone who has any agenda items they would like on the agenda should 16t him know. He said one of the items for discussion would be the Coastal Plan. Other items suggested by the Commission were signs and tightening up on violators of the Development Code. Procedure on Coastal Plan if they had any concerns prior to the they could hold a special meeting. Director Hightower advised the Commis- sion that they must report back to the City Council by December 3. She said ]oint meeting with the City Council, A meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, at 7:30 p.m. to discuss the Coastal Plan and Code Amendment No. 5. The Commission felt both of those items could also go on the agenda for the meeting of November 28, if necessary. Resolution No. 78-47 It was the consensus of the Commission that "by the Director of Planning" should be added to the end of condition no. 16 of Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 78-47. ADJOURNMENT At 12:50 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, November 21, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. 11/14/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-