Loading...
PC MINS 19781226I M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting December 26, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes ABSENT: McTaggart Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planners Keith Turner and Charlie Jencks, and Code Inspector Sandra Lavitt. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 41 Mr. Turner said at the last meeting VARIANCE NO. 34 the Commission conceptually approved Crestridge Road the project based -on some revision to Landowner/Applicant: Episcopal Home unit 4 to further reduce potential view obstruction. He said the appli- cant has removed the third floor of the last 100 feet of that unit and relocated the units to the southerly end of unit 3. He referred to the changes made to Exhpibit "A", as listed in the staff report. He said the revised residency priority agreement had been reviewed by the City Attorney and referred to the revised landscape criteria, as shown in the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the project sub3ect to the conditions in Exhibit "A". Mrs. Bacharach said the two conditions re a three-month trial period and duplicate copies which were suggested by staff at the last meeting were not included in the resolution. Mr. Turner said they were intended to be in the resolution and would be added. Mrs. Bacharach said those two conditions should be numbered as 19 and 20 of Exhibit "A" and the✓existing #19 should be changed to #21. Mr. Hughes asked how many rooms were removed from building 3 and how many were added to building 4. Mr. Turner said he did not have the figure but that the same number were added as were removed, there was no loss or gain. Claude Senefeld, architect representing the applicant, said they moved a total of 8 apartments. He said relocation of the -sewer be done. Z-11�_L Mr. Hughes felt an effort had been made by the applicant to reduce the view impaikment. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, -to adopt Resolution No. 78-53, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 41 and Variance No. 34, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", as amended. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: McTaggart Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 45 Mr. Weber said this was to be the first Golden Cove Shopping Center public hearing on the expansion of the Applicant/Landowner: Terra III Golden Cove Shopping Center. He said the land changed hands during the last couple months, and the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to a future meeting so that revised plans may be submitted. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened, as advertised, then immediately continued to the meeting of Janu- ary 23, 1979, unless the Commission wished to take a poll of the audience to see if anyone wished to comment on the item. Public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak on this matter. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued, as recommended by staff. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36301 Mr. Turner said this request was for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 46 a 10 -lot subdivision and the construc- Peacock Ridge & Highridge Roads tion of 10 units, common recreation (Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 28750) facilities, and related infrastruc- Landowner/Applicant: WSM Co., Inc. tural networks. He reviewed the pro- cedural requirements and described the project location, zoning, access, and topography. He described the proposed structures and said the maximum height was 26 feet. He said a tennis court, small recreation room, pool and jacuzzi were also proposed, as well as 7 guest parking spaces. He said staff concerns were: potential annoying noise levels to the Casa Verde unit owners which may result from court usage, since the tennis court was proposed to be located directly adjacent to that development; the width of the street, radii of the curves and steepness of the approach --although re- vised plans recently submitted were looked at more favorably by the Director of Public Works; and views --he said a view analysis from the second story of the units would be prepared for the next meeting. He reviewed the Code comparison chart, as shown in the staff report, and said theneedfor a variance was no longer required since the tennis court had been lowered. He said the applicant intended to revise the plans to meet the Code where any variance would be required. He said the Director of Public Works recom- mended a 26 -foot wide street instead of 22 feet, as proposed, because a 22 -foot wide street would not permit parking. Staff had no concerns with grading at this time and recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, discuss major issues and identify any concerns so as to give direction to the applicant. Public hearing was opened. Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering, representing the applicant, said where Code requirements were not met, the plans would be revised. He said lower- ing the tennis court would require more cut and changing the grade of the driveway would also resultAn more cut and export. He said he did not have exact figures at this time. Re the street layout, he said they have made changes but cannot agree with staff on the street width. He said a 22 -foot street with no parking was more usable than a 26 -foot wide street with park- ing. He said with the revised plan the retaining wall at the driveway and property line, originally shown as 8 feet high, would now be 10 feet. He said the street would be private and would have parking bays. He said 7 guest parking spaces for 10 homes exceed the Code requirement by 40 percent. Bob Wyzenbeek, 11 Via Seville, Casa Verde, Rolling Hills Estates, said the tennis court and 4 parking spaces were proposed to be located directly behind his bedroom. He was opposed to the court and felt it should be moved closer to the units within the development. He was very concerned about noise and loss of view. Robert Daly, 5965 Peacock Ridge Road, felt there were not enough parking spaces proposed. He said there were serious existing parking and traffic problems. Gus Barkos, 5987 Peacock Ridge Road, said he has experienced no parking problem on Peacock Ridge Road. Mr. Wyzenbeek estimated that 30 percent of Casa Verde had cars in excess of the two parking spaces provided. Mr. Daly said the average number of cars in his complex was 22 per unit. 12/26/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- In response to a Commission question, the applicant said the units were proposed to be 3 bedrooms plus den. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. The Commission had many concerns with the proposed location of the court and asked if other proposals had been considered. Richard Linde, 210 Avenue I, Redondo Beach, architect, said they located the tennis court in the most level area on the site, one which was well- founded and would not necessitate a lot of grading. He felt for topography, geology, and soils reasons, this was the best solution and if it could not be located there they would prefer to eliminate the tennis court rather than relocate it. Mr. Hughes felt the tennis court was in a poor location as it would affect the neighbors and was remote from the people it was intended to be used by. He felt the owners of the project should bear the noise from the court, not the residents of another facility. He felt the tennis court should be relocated on the site or removed. He suggested that the applicant work with staff to resolve this problem and the parking problem. He suggested using the tennis court area for additional parking. Mrs. Bacharach concurred. Dr. Brown also felt the applicant should change the plans to reflect elimin- ation of the setback problem. Mr. Hinchliffe said it appeared that the driveways were not large enough to accommodate a car. He felt guest parking was a serious problem, consider- ing the size of the units. He agreed that the tennis court should be re- located, perhaps shifting some of the units so that the court was in the middle of the development. He said regardless of the width of the street, people would park there and if it was 22 feet, there would be difficulty driving through with cars parked along it. Mr. McAlpin said they were conforming with the Code and there appeared to be a difference between what the Code required and what would be ideal. He asked for direction from the Commission in order to redesign. Mr. Turner said removal of the tennis court, keeping the 7 parking bays, and revising the driveways to hold two cars would provide much more parking. Mrs. Bacharach said she would feel much more comfortable with a 26 -foot wide street, as she felt people would park there. Mr. Hughes said the Commission did not wish,to make the project into a parking lot, but wished to provide adequate parking. He said they looked to the applicant to propose some measures to mitigate the problem. Mr. Turner said he did not feel view obstruction would be an issue, but would have the analysis ready for the next meeting. Mr. Hinchliffe asked that a condition be placed in the CC&Rs to prohibit lighting on the tennis court if it is constructed. At 9:12 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. with the same members present. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously car- ried, the order of the agenda was changed to put Grading No. 340 ahead of Code Amendment No. 6. GRADING NO. 340 APPEAL 4104 Miraleste Drive Applicant/Landowner: C. Hawke Mr. Jencks said this was an appeal to a staff denial of an application which requested permitting a newly constructed 12/26/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- downslope retaining wall and compacted fill to remain in its present con- figuration and allow for completion of the rear yard improvements which include a swimming pool. He reviewed the violations and the Code criteria. He said the grading was excessive and maximized disturbance to the natural contours. He referred the Commission to detailed drawings, saying the prob- lem with this type of application was that the drawings were all done after the fact. Staff recommended that the Commission uphold the staff denial of the project application and consider both alternative measures proposed by staff, as shown in the staff report, or any other measures which would bring the project into complete conformance with the Code. Charlotte Hawke, 4104 Miraleste Drive, applicant, said the man for -the deck- ing said there was no compaction and did not recommend putting in the deck with that condition. She said she had put in a wall in the front area which did not require approval and, therefore, did not realize she needed approval for the wall in the rear yard. She felt the wall had ample footing and that there was ample drainage. In response to a Commission question, Sandra Lavitt, Code Inspector, said she became involved around the middle of October because of a complaint. She said she observed the wall at that time and told the supervisor of the job that there would be a'Code violation if the wall was backfilled. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it was possible to maintain the soil in the area with- out a retaining wall. He said it violates the Code and was unnecessary. Dr. Brown agreed and felt staff's suggested mitigation measure, particularly with a 50 percent created slope, was reasonable. Mrs. Bacharach said she would feel comfortable with a 50 percent created slope. Mr. Hughes agreed that a 50 -percent created slope was a reasonable com- promise. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to uphold the appeal subject to the following conditions: that the wall be lowered to approximately 4 feet at the point where the wall reduces in thickness and that the slope be established at 50 percent, subject to staff approval. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: McTaggart Mr. Hughes ad�rised of the right to appeal this decision to the city Council within fifteen calendar days. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 6 Mr. Weber said the intent was to amend Stock Cooperatives and the Code to allow the Director of Plan - Right -of -Way Signing ning to make decisions on signing in the public right-of-way and to include regulations on stock cooperative hous- ing. He explained that on October 3, 1978, Council established a moratorium on the creation of stock cooperatives in order to allow time to study the issue and determine if a Code amendment should be proposed. He referred to the study which had been submitted for the Commission's consideration. He said staff recommended adoption of the draft resolution and approval of the Guidelines for Signs in the Public Right -of -Way. Mr. Hughes asked how the City could enforce the Code since no subdivision map was required for cooperatives. Mr. Weber felt the City Attorney had thought a great deal about this amend- ment --he said one way might b� to work something out with the Department of Real Estate to apprise the City. Further,, as with other City regulations, it is up to developers to be aware of application requirements. Mr. Hinchliffe said there were differences of -opinion that it was never put under the Map Act. He felt it was a question of the State Legislature catching up. 12/26/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Dr. Brown asked if other cities have been challenged. Mr. Weber said there was litigation, but he was not sure whether it has been resolved yet. He said the Coastal Commission has determined that it has control over cooperatives. The public hearing was opened. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown expressed concern over the vacancy factor. Mrs. Bacharach expressed concern with the wording in the Guidelines for signing. It was decided to change #1 to read "Temporary Directional Signs." On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 78-54, recommending to the City Council Code Amendment No. 6 for the regulations of stock cooperative housing and signs in the public right-of-way. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the Guidelines for Signs in the Public Right -of -Way, as amended this evening. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber referred to the letter to the Director of Planning from Lester Barron requesting a work session with the Planning Commission for the proposed convalescent home. Paul Barron said the escrow was scheduled to close on April 30 and there were penalties for delaying it. He said they would like to have the condi- tional use permit and building permit prior to that. Mr. Weber said the project application was submitted on December 5 and that there were a couple major applications ahead of it. He guessed it would be possibly scheduled in February. He said he felt a work session would be beneficial to the Commission even more than to the applicant. He suggested that it be scheduled for a regular meeting after New Business. Mr. Hughes felt a work session would be beneficial in that it would give the applicant adequate time to respond to the Commission's major concerns so that at the public hearing level there would be no major changes required. The Commission agreed and staff was directed to schedule a work session for one of the next two meetings if there was a light agenda, and that if there does not appear to be a light agenda, the Commission would schedule a sep- arate meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown asked the date of the League of California Cities conference which was to be held in Monterey sometime in February, 1979. Mr. Weber said he did not know, but would check with the Director of Planning. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the list of subcommittees. Mr. Hughes said there were only two subcommittees: (1) the joint antenna subcommittee of Council and Commission and (2) the code enforcement sub- committee. ub=committee. ADJOURNMENT At 10:50 p.m. it was -moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn to Tuesday, January 9, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. 12/26/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-