Loading...
PC MINS 19790123M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 23, 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Associated Planner Gary Weber and Assistant Planners Keith Turner and Karen Heit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried (with Mr. Hinchliffe abstaining), the minutes of the meeting of January 9, 1979, were approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Jeannette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow, spoke about the Height Variation Ordinance. She said she was speaking as an inter- ested resident and with the help of Elaine Jackson, attorney. She felt the ordinance should be strengthened; that there should be 1) establishment of the finite nature of a view, 2) consideration of the economic value of view property, and 3) re -instatement of neighborhood compatibility. She sub- mitted copies of her written testimony to the Commission and staff. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36301 Mr. Turner said this item was con - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 46 tinued from the December 26 meeting Peacock Ridge & Highridge Roads where such issues as guest parking, (Lots 1 & 2, Tract 28750) noise generation from the tennis Applicant/Landowner: WSM Dev. Co. court, street design and potential view obstruction were discussed. He said the applicant responded to some of the issues through revision. He reviewed the changes to the plan, as listed in the staff report. He said staff was satisfied with the proposed number of parking spaces. Staff felt moving the court away from the prop- erty line would further increase the buffer by enabling a denser screen of landscaping, and also recommended a requirement for windscreens. Staff was still uncomfortable with the proposed 22 feet street width and felt some provisions should be made to accommodate an emergency situation. After visiting the second story of a unit at Casas Verdes to ascertain view ob- struction, staff recommended that view obstruction be eliminated as a con- cern. Staff recommended that the Commission continue to take public input, discuss and decide on issues presented and grant conceptual approval based on any necessary modifications. Mr. Hughes explained that this was a continued public hearing; he reviewed the procedures and opened the public hearing. Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering, representing the applicant, said revi- sions to the plan reflect responses to the suggestions and concerns of the Commission at the last meeting. He said the tennis court has been moved to allow more landscaping and buffering, and the driveways were re -aligned to provide at least 16 feet in front of garages so there is room for two parking spaces in the driveway of all but one home. He said they reduced the size of the court in order to arrive at this configuration. Re the street width, he said they do not want cars parked on the street. He re- ferred to the drawings and said the pavement width was much wider at the curves. He said the trade-offs with widening the street to 24 feet were reduced landscaping, reduced driveway lengths, and increased pavement. He said 26 feet would require that they go to a configuration with parallel parking, as they could not have parking bays without reducing the number of units or the pad size. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the problem which would arise should anyone have a party. Mrs. Bacharach asked about vegetation planned for the private drive near property lines. Mr. Matzuda, 5 Via Seville, Rolling Hills Estates, was opposed to the tennis court, as proposed, because it would create noise and be a nuisance to the residents of Casas Verdes. He felt the tennis court should be moved to the outer point of the development or eliminated. He did not feel the proposed parking would accommodate a party and did not feel driveway park- ing should be included, as people would not permit neighbors' guests to park in their driveway. He felt a loop road would give the development a feeling of openness. He distributed copies of his testimony to the Commis- sion, and noted that his written comments were signed by several residents who agreed with his statements. Bob Wysenbeek, 11 Via Seville, concurred with the previous speaker. He felt the residents of the development should bear the discomfort of the tennis court. He was also concerned about the court fencing obstructing his view. He said it would not be preferable to move structures to where the tennis court is proposed and felt the best solution was elimination of the tennis court. He asked the proposed height of the structures. Mr. Turner said from the roadway the structures vary in height from 17 feet to 25 feet. Oscar Nurse, 17 Via Seville, was concerned with future court lighting if it is approved as shown. He was also concerned about view obstruction. Mr. Hughes explained there was no lighting proposed at this time, and future proposals for lighting would require a conditional use permit which would require notification and public hearing. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Commission discussion ensued. I Mr. McTaggart felt there was more consideration given towards amenities and not enough towards the road network. He was in?favor of a wider roadway. He was not in favor of the tennis court if it creates a nuisance to the adjacent properties. He would be in favor of relocating it. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred with Mr. McTaggart re the wider roadway. He did not feel a narrow street would prohibit parking. Re the tennis court, he felt alternatives had not been explored. He was in favor of more guest parking, wider roadway, and relocation or elimination of the tennis court, as suggested at the last meeting. Dr. Brown agreed, but felt if the tennis court was relocated, it should not create a privacy problem by switching locations with the units. Mrs. Bacharach did not feel relocating the tennis court by changing places with the units was the answer. She suggested a different configuration but not at the expense of switching with the units. She felt guests do not park in other people's driveways and felt parallel parking would be better. Re landscaping, she felt a minimum plant size should be a condi- tion of approval. Mr. Hughes said the consensus was for moving or removing the tennis court. He said the General Plan does encourage development of private recreational activities, but in this case the site appears to be excessively developed,,J� V,,,_-i� felt the tennis court did not belong where presently proposed, M would 1/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- not be in favor of changing its location with the three units. He suggested reducing the number of units if the applicant desired to keep the tennis court. He felt the road system was too narrow and should be looked at to make it consistent with the City's street standards, with enough width to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. He said the consensus of the Commission was to widen the road to at least 26 feet. He said the Commission would like to see a realistic parking scheme for the development. He said there was also a consensus to not change the units with the tennis court. Bill Smith, WSM Development Co., Inc., said they want to keep the homes on the bluff for the view. He said they would explore different alternatives in response to the concerns of the Commission. He asked if the Commission could suggest a desirable number of guest parking spaces. Mr. Hinchliffe, in response, suggested a target number comparable to -what would be available in an R-1 development. Mr. Hughes advised the audience that there would not be further public notice and anyone interested should contact staff re when this item would again be on the agenda. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 35 Mr. Turner said this item was last VARIANCE NO. 25 heard at the June 27, 1978, meeting Intersection of Silver Spur Road where it was continued until the ap- and Silver Spur frontage road plicant submitted a complete geology Applicant/Landowner: Matt Brunning report with -test borings to staff and the City Engineer for review. He said the overall conclusions of the report indicate that the project was feasible using a buttress fill to stabilize the currently existing unstable slope. He noted that the report had not been approved by the City Engineer, merely reviewed for adequacy and dis- cussion. He said approval would not occur until the project has been sub- mitted to the County for permits. Staff recommended that the Commission proceed with the conditional use permit process, keeping in mind that the remedial grading was necessary for ultimately stabilizing the slope. He said the current plan proposes a parking ratio of 4.14 and staff recommended that the Commission accept the parking scheme in terms of number of spaces. Staff had no specific concerns with the quantity of grading, but was con- cerned with the ultimate visual characteristics. Staff felt that the wall was excessive and should be reduced as much as possible. Staff recommended that the Commission instruct the applicant to present alternative designs for this portion of the site; i.e. use of a double wall and landscaping, modification of the structure to cover or screen the wall, multi-level parking concepts, etc. He said in addition to the required parking variance, the Commission had previously discussed the merits of a setback variance and a variance to a landscaping requirement. Staff recommended that the Commission continue to take public input, discuss issues presented and give direction to the applicant. He said he had a copy of the geology report if the Commission wished to review it. Mr. Hughes re -opened the public hearing. Matt Brunning, 727 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, asked if the Commission could approve the project sub3ect to conditions. Mr. Turner said the item must come back to the Commission anyway for adop- tion of the resolution and conditions. Mr. Brunning agreed to come back in two weeks with revised plans to mini- mize the wall. He said the architect has looked into multi-level parking, but that the access takes up so much room that there were only about 5-6 spaces more than with single level parking at a tremendous cost. He said they will limit tenancy of the building in the CC&Rs. Andrew Joncich, architect, said they not come up with a scheme that would reason for the height of the wall was tried a series of schemes but could be more beneficial. He said the to arrive at the parking requirement 1/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- that the Commission asked for. He said they did not like the wall, but unless they eliminated a couple parking spaces, they could not avoid it. - Robert Ferm, 27645 Longhill Drive, said he was not opposed to the project but was concerned as a homeowner above this area about slope failure. He asked if he could obtain a copy of the geology report. He asked if the City would assume liability in the event that there was failure of the slope. Mr. Turner said copies of the report could be available, but arrangements would have to be made for xeroxing. Mr. Brunning said he would furnish a copy of the report. Ted de Roos, 27641 Longhill, said he would like to study the geology re- port since the stability of the hill was his concern. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. McTaggart said he had no problem with the project as presented. Mr. Hinchliffe felt if eliminating 2-3 parking spaces would decrease the risk of negatively affecting that slope, it seemed to be a fair trade-off. He said he was not bothered by the 20-f6ot height because it was hidden by the building. He said the ratio was 3.82 per 1000 square feet if 3 spaces were removed. He felt that would be adequate, particularly if the tenancy excludes medical offices. Mrs. Bacharach did not feel they should give up parking spaces as she thought Silver Spur Road would become no parking in the future. Dr. Brown concurred with Mrs. Bacharach and felt perhaps they should re- consider increasing the required parking spaces. Mr. McTaggart pointed out that a multi-level structure would require more grading. Mr. Hughes said he had some concerns about the wall. He felt if eliminat- ing 2-3 parking spaces would reduce the height of the wall, he would agree to that. Mr. Hinchliffe was more concerned with minimizing the grading than in giving up two parking spaces. Mr. Hughes suggested that staff ask -the City Attorney the question of liability and ask for guidance and direction. He told the applicant that the Commission would like to look at the -trade-offs for reducing the height of the wall and wished to look at the rest of the plans that are proposed for that site. He said they will want to see the drawings showing what the building will look like. He recommended that the applicant offer to staff some suggested wording for the tenancy restriction in the CC&Rs. Mr. Hughes advised that there would be no additional public notice and that interested parties should check with staff to see when this will be on the agenda. RECESS At 9:55 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:08 p.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 37 REVISION Mr. Weber reviewed the request which GRADING APPROVAL NO. 312 would allow for the creation of addi- 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South tional parking at Marineland. Staff Applicant/Landowner: Hanna -Barbera determined that this amendment did not Marineland require a public hearing since it does 1/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- not substantially intensify the current use but rather responds to an in- creased patronage that was anticipated during earlier analysis. He re- viewed the background of the project stating that one of the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit which was granted in January of 1978 required that additional parking be provided when peak attendance figures reach 9965 patrons per day. He referred to the plans and said the project involved construction/grading for two new parking lots which would accommo- date about 916 cars. He said a review of the project with respect to the grading evaluation criteria shows overall conformance. He said the primary staff concern involves landscape treatment; specifically, the need for a landscape buffer and view obstruction potential. It was staff's feeling that a carefully designed landscaping plan could provide adequate buffering and interior landscaping, yet preserve the view of the Peninsula's southern shoreline and Catalina. He said he was not aware of any proposed lighting and that the applicant had been alerted that he may need Coastal Commission approval. Staff's recommendation was for approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit and of the grading request. There was no one present to speak on this matter. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Reso- lution No. 79-1, thereby amending Conditional Use Permit No. 37 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" as presented by staff. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 312 was approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 45 Mr. Weber said the public hearing on Golden Cove Shopping Center this item was opened on December 20 Applicant/Landowner: Terra III and immediately continued to this meeting without review at the request of the applicant. Since that meeting the applicant submitted a letter to the City formally withdrawing the ap- lication. He said they are new owners and are trying to redesign the project and there would not be time to adequately review the plans within the State time limit. Staff recommended that the Commission move to accept the withdrawal and close the public hearing. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the applicant's withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 45 was accepted and the public hearing was closed. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 108 APPEAL Ms. Heit said this project was approved 6903 Cherty Place by staff on December 28 based on no Applicant/Landowner: R. Eastwood view obstruction and this was an appeal Appellants: Hoff, Colls, Stone to that decision. She reviewed the project description and location and the appellants' grounds for appeal. She referred the Commission to photographs. Staff recommended that the Commission uphold staff's decision and grant the height variation accordingly. Ray Eastwood, 6903 Cherty Place, said they gave careful consideration in designing this project so they would not obstruct anyone's view. He said the project was designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and with the existing structure. He said they spoke with the neighbors during the design process and the only concern expressed was that the addition not ob- struct views. He said the reason they wanted a second story addition was to preserve open space. He referred to the elevations and submitted infor- mation re the number of existing two-story homes and the number of two- story additions recently granted in the area. He submitted additional photographs. He felt due to the difference in elevations, the steepness of the surrounding banks, the orientation of the structure and the distance from the homes, he did not feel the project would infringe on anyone's privacy. 1/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Bob Scurrah, 6911 Cherty Place, concurred with the previous speaker and said he could not conceive of anyone thinking this home would not be com- patible with the neighborhood. In his opinion, the-ohly view obstruction would be that of the roof tops of other structures. Sheila Hoff, 28205 Ambergate Drive, presented copies of the presentation to the Commission and said the presentation would be made by three people. She said they would first address the staff report and then address the basis for appeal. Ann Stone, 28125 Ambergate Drive, said although there would be very little personal impact to her, she was concerned with the community and the cumu- lative effect. She said the staff report contained erroneous information about pad elevations; that the area was built to six dwelling units per acre; that it was predominately single story; that the decision was based solely on the determination that no view obstruction exists; that it was not evaluated by Code and policy; that three lots would suffer from view obstruction; that for possibly five lots the structure would become the focal point; that there was no mention of the property on Brookford and no siting from lot #1; that staff's analysis was done from a standing position and most people sit down to view things; that privacy was not evaluated; and that staff was violating the Code and its de6ision was made on inadequate and inaccurate facts. She discussed the issue of cumulative effect as one of the reasons for the appeal. Sheila Hoff said the project was not compatible with the existing structures in the area which is a goal of the General Plan. She said the structure would be an obtrusive focal point. She read a section from the CC&Rs. Bill Koines, 28133 Ambergate Drive, read a section of the General Plan con- cerning privacy and said this addition violates the privacy of several homes. He said the cumulative effect must be considered. He conducted a slide presentation for the Commission. Mr. Eastwood did not feel that cumulative effect really pertained to this application, that it should stand on its own merits. Mr. Hughes explained the criteria under which height variations may be granted. He said additional information from the City Council and the City Attorney indicates that the cumulative effect does not take place until a view obstruction occurs. Mr. McTaggart pointed out that the City cannot consider the CC&Rs. Re com- patibility, he said the whole neighborhood would have to be considered, not just a select area. Re cumulative effect, he said they could not penalize someone for something someone else might do. He felt the height variation ordinance was put into the Code to accommodate a house that was at a lower elevation than surrounding homes, as this one is. He felt staff did nothing other than follow the direction of the City Council and City Attorney in determining height variations. Dr. Brown concurred with Mr. McTaggart and said he did not feel there was any view obstruction. He did not feel cumulative effect applied in this situation. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred. Mrs. Bacharach said she finds compatibility impossible to define. She felt cumulative effect only takes place when there is view obstruction. Mr. Hughes said re incompatibility, there was a notification area in the decision making process.7' Re view obstruction, he felt the ordinance was very clear and that in this case the photographs and the slides presented tonight clearly show there is no view obstruction. Re violation of the CC&Rs, he said the City cannot enforce them. He said the ordinance does not consider the question of privacy. He felt there was ample spacing between the homes and that there would not be unreasonable interference with anyone's privacy in this case. 1/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to deny the appeal of Height Variation No. 108. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 12:30 a.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 12:35 a.m. with the same members present. COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Bacharach asked the status of the tree trim ordinance. Mr. Weber said the first application was still pending and that three more applications were received in December. He said the second application would be heard at tomorrow night's Environmental Committee meeting. A subcommittee composed of Mrs. Bacharach and Mr. Hinchliffe was formed to look into proposed changes to the parking requirements for commercial development. Mrs. Bacharach reported on the height variation subcommittee. It was de- cided that Mrs. Bacharach and Dr. Brown would write the report for a work session on January 30 at 7:30 p.m., at which time the Commission would re- view and discuss it and agree upon the wording of the report to be sent to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT At 1:30 a.m. it was moved, -seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, January 30, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. 1/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-