Loading...
PC MINS 19781128M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting November 28, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 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 Charlie Jencks. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 5 Director Hightower said staff made the Height Variation Revisions revisions which had been discussed at the work session of November 21 con- cerning Sections B.l.e., B.3., and C.l. She reviewed those revisions and said staff recommended adoption of the draft resolution recommending adoption by the City Council of Code Amend- ment No. 5 and the attached Exhibit "A". No one in the audience wished to make comment. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 78-51, with attached Exhibit "A", recommending adoption by the City Council of Code Amendment No. 5. Vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 Director Hightower said the applicant Revision was requesting deletion -of condition Tentative Tract No. 32991 #2 of Conditional Use Permit No. 23. Applicant: Western America She explained that revisions were pre - Development Corp. viously requested and, although ini- tially denied, were granted on Febru- ary 14 of this year, but that deletion of the subject condition was not discussed at that meeting. Staff recom- mended that condition #2 be deleted as it would still meet the intent of the conditional use permit. Victor Gurske, 22249 Mulholland, Woodland Hills, said if some buyers built within the time limit and others did not, the property could not be reverted to acreage. He said each plan has been reviewed and conceptually approved and that the buyer of a lot would be supplied with the approved plan. He said if any buyer wished to make any modifications to the plan, he would have to go through the City for approval. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to delete con- dition #2 and thus approve the revision to Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 77-13, as recommended by staff. Mr. Hughes asked if staff felt comfortable with approving individual plans. Director Hightower said yes. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSTAIN: Brown, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 47 Mr. Jencks said the request was for Lots 16 & 17, Tract 28750 (north- two single family structures in a east side of Peacock Ridge Road) residential multiple family district. Applicant: The Whitestone He said the project would.require very little, if any, grading; access would be taken directly off of Peacock Ridge Road; and the proposed height was 26 feet, which would be compatible with those multiple family uses adjacent to the site. He showed photos to the Commission and said based on a view analysis, staff felt there would not be much view impairment. He reviewed the conflicts with the setback require- ments, saying both lots conflict with the side setback requirement, and lot 17 conflicts with the front setback, all of which would require approval of a minor exception permit. He said the applicant had been advised of this, but had not yet submitted application for the required minor exception per- mit. Staff recommended that the public hearing be continued until such time as the applicant submits and receives determination from staff on the required minor exception permit. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if it was necessary for the Commission to await the outcome of the minor exception permit before deciding on the conditional use permit. Director Hightower said the Commission could approve the conditional use permit subject to the condition that the applicant submit and obtain ap- proval of a minor exception permit. She said if the Commission felt com- fortable they could approve the project in concept and staff could prepare a resolution for the Commission's next meeting. Mike Leming, 6502 Ocean Crest, representing applicant, said if they changed the placement of the structures, it would require more grading. He said the minor exception permit was a lengthy process and explained that development of this site has taken a lot of time so far. Ken de Graaf, 28304 Lunada Ridge Drive, was concerned about the height, as the structures would block the view from Stoneridge. Mr. Hinchliffe said in his opinion the view would be obstructed by a 16 -foot house, as they are at the same grade or within one or two feet. Mrs. Bacharach felt it would be inappropriate for the structures to be lower as the sites are surrounded by high buildings. Mr. McTaggart asked the time involved for a minor exception permit. Mr. Jencks explained the procedure and said there are 30 days involved just for waiting periods following the notifications, plus time for decision- making and preparing notices, etc. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion., seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to close the public hearing. Dr. Brown suggested that the hearing be continued until the minor exception permit was resolved. The above motion and second were withdrawn. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, the public hearing was continued, with Mr. Hinchliffe dissenting. Dr. Brown felt anything built on the lots would cause view impairment. He felt the orientation of the structures could preserve some view. He asked if the Commission could by-pass the minor exception permit process under the conditional use permit. Director Hightower said the development standards all apply with this kind of application. She said the applicant was notified at the environmental assessment stage but has been reluctant to submit the application. Mr. Hinchliffe said he was not opposed to granting the conditional use per- mit on the basis that the applicant resolve the sideyard setback situation. 11/28/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Leming said they could shift the homes or reduce the size to eliminate the sideyard setback problem. Mr. de Graaf pointed out that the view would be between the homes, not over them. Mr. Hughes felt they should try to achieve the maximum space between the homes. He said he was comfortable with the reduction of the 20 -foot front setback, but would like to see the side setbacks wider than proposed. Mrs. Bacharach agreed they should maintain as wide a separation as possible. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 47, contingent upon the following: 1) approval of a minor exception permit for the front setback; and 2) that the side setbacks be maintained at 10 feet, as required. Roll call vote was as follows: RECESS AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None At 8:30 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. with the same members present. WORK SESSION The Planning Commission decided to go Coastal Plan through the Plan and agree on any re- visions, beginning with -the Subregion Section. SR -2 School site text should be updated to indicate site is surplus. Marineland current activities and traffic impacts should be updated. Add to Policy 8 to give second priority on Abalone Cove School Site to use on a portion as retirement housing. SR -3 Policies 1, 2 and 3 need ranking as follows: 1. Encourage the use of transfer of development rights within Sub- region 3 to provide local recreational activities on bluff lands. 2. Further study the concept of development transfer within this Subregion as a means which the City can enforce for the purpose preserving agricultural land. 3. In the event that development transfer proves to be unfeasible, require any development on lands seaward of Seacove Drive to apply under a Residential Planned Development scheme in order to maintain coastal views. SR -4 Add a policy concerning the City's efforts to solve the parking problems in Lower Abalone Cove relative to the Park. SR -5 Delete the term "sandy" in reference to the beach. Add to Policy 3 "and require paths and trails linking with the Coastal corridors." SR -6 Page SR6-5, Lease Area, delete "remaining" in first sentence. 11/28/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- SR -7 School site text should be updated to indicate site is surplus. Add the same policy as in SR -1 re requiring a bluff road. Policy 15: "Primary" access to Shoreline Park shall not be pro- vided on Paseo del Mar for vehicular traffic. Policy 16: Strike "only". Other Recommendations: I Any policy contained in the Plan referring to density credit should be consistent with the existing Development Code. U-44 Local Streets, remove "unless there.... impediment." It was moved by Mrs.*Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously car- ried, to forward the recommendations, as generated in its review of the Revised Draft Plan, as the report to the City Council. Staff will draft the report for individual review by the Commissioners prior to forwarding it to Council. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart reported further possible violations at 6537 Abbottswood. Direc- tor Hightower stated staff was taking action on some items and was monitoring the situation. ADJOURNMENT the Parks and Recreation offices. At 11:55- p.m. it was moved.-set:onded, and carried to adjourn to Wednesday, November 29, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., in i 11/28/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-