Loading...
PC MINS 19790313M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 13, 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: Bacharach Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Code Inspector Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of February 27, 1979, were approved with the following amendments: page 1, paragraph 3, line 10, delete the word required, should read "...shall be no trash enclosure..."; page 2, paragraph 8, line 8, should read "...wall by bolts. She..."; page 3, paragraph 9, line 10, should read "...has addi- tional sign..."; page 3, paragraph 9, line 13, should read "...#15 thru #18) be..."; page 7, last paragraph, line 2, should read "...hearing was continued."; page 8, paragraph 1, line 1, should read "...of the rooms was too..."; page 8, paragraph 8, line 4, should read "...could probably begin around..." ZONE CHANGE NO. 4 Director Hightower said this item had CODE AMENDMENT NO. 7 been continued from the meetings of February 27 and February 13. She said the reason for the last continuance was because of problems with the Open Space Hazard (OH) boundaries, but not within the Coastal Zone. She recommended deleting from Zone Change No. 4 those refinements of the OH boundary lines, leaving in everything within the Coastal Zone. She said the public hearing date shown in the draft reso- lution would have to be changed to include the last meeting date and to- night's. She recommended deleting #1 of the zone change exhibit, changing the numbering, and adding as #11 the following: "Residential Single -Family, RS -1, to RS -2 in area north of Palos Verdes Drive South, easterly of Sea - cove." She further recommended making the Zone Change revisions Exhibit "A" and the Code Amendment revisions Exhibit "B". Public hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 79-5, recommending to the City Council Zone Change No. 4 and Code Amend- ment No. 7 with the appropriate exhibits, as amended this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Bacharach CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 48 VARIANCE NO. 36 Crestridge Road Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties Applicant: Lester Barron that the concept proposed would not ably require a higher density than Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the development proposed 196 beds in 178 rooms. He said concerns identified at that meeting included visual appearance, grading, intensity of use, and the re- quest of several variances. He said the applicant indicated at that meeting be financially feasible and would prob- proposed. A consensus of the Commission at that meeting indicated that higher density would not be approved. He said the applicant has proposed no physical revisions to the project, but indicated to staff that the absolute minimum number of rooms needed to make the project feasible was 249. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the project based on the inability to determine that this project was neces- sary or desirable for the development of the community or region for the reasons listed in the staff report. Mr. Hughes explained hearing procedures and re -opened the public hearing. Lester Barron, applicant, said re density, they were asking for the minimum of what a large number of similar facilities in other cities have. He said from a budgetary point of view, they would need a minimum of 249 rooms. He said they could not ask elderly guests to pay higher rates to cover the costs. He said they would need room for 300 people in order to make the project financially feasible. Clyde Kensey, 30012 Matisse, felt the project would not impact schools, fire department services, etc. He said the area was zoned for institutional development and felt the concept appeared to benefit the overall future goals of the City and would be good from a tax base standpoint. J. Webster Smith, 45 Seawall Road, Portuguese Bend, said he worked in a facility of this type in San Pedro. He felt private enterprise could handle the job much more cheaply than a county facility. He felt there was a definite need for this type facility in the area. John Arand, 5731 Mistridge, asked if consideration had been given to the loading zones, asked about private open space which is required in resi- dential multiple developments, and felt there should be an access road re- quired which circles the pro]ect. Mr. Weber said there was a requirement for loading and that he would check it out. He said there was an access requirement by the Fire Department, and that there would be landscape treatment along the western side of the develop- ment which would allow for emergency vehicular access to the rear of the property. Re private open space, he said there was no specific requirement in the institutional zone. Edward Koch, 5671 Mistridge, said he surveyed the parked cars on Crestridge on Sunday and he reported those figures to the Commission. He indicated there was a fair at the syn�gogue that afternoon which may account for the congestion in the afternoon, but that the figures given for the period prior to noon represented a typical Sunday. He felt because of the existing prob- lems, there should be no compromise with the number of parking spaces for this project. He distributed a copy of his letter and photographs to the Commission. He said the intersection at Crenshaw was jammed to capacity. Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Koch knew what the road capacity was at that inter- section. He said the streets have a specific capacity. He asked if there was an increase in traffic and parking on Mistridge as a result. Mr. Koch said there was not. '4a"`g Virgil Swanson, 5677 Mistridge, s4ra& he also observed the parking problem on that particular Sunday. He said there was a dangerous situation on Crest - ridge with cars parked all the way up on both sides and people making U-turns. Re the height, he said he purchased his home with a view and felt whatever is built on that property should be within the limitations set by the Code. Mr. McTaggart pointed out that the City had changed the zoning in that area from commercial to institutional and that there were no objections raised by the public at that time. He said there was a procedure in the Code for every structure in every zone to exceed the height limit. Michael Furey, 5615 Mistridge, expressed concern about the height of the structures. He also felt it was a poor location for -the aged as there were no parks or beaches in close proximity. 3/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Joseph Ragozino, 5725 Mistridge, was opposed to the project because it was a violation of the General Plan re number of units and people per acre. He was concerned with the cumulative effect related to view obstruction. He was also concerned about the traffic impact. Pat Arand, 5131 Mistridge, read and distributed copies to the Commission of a letter from the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association expressing con- cerns with density, traffic, view obstruction, etc. She asked about a traffic projection study which the Commission had requested last fall. Mr. Weber said the traffic study was done and involved a machine count of traffic for four days. He said staff analyzed the existing condition and projection standards to come up with maximum peak hour traffic. He said it was based on build -out of the City and adjacent properties in Rolling Hills Estates. Director Hightower said each city makes the determination of whether an en- vironmental impact report (EIR) is required for a project. She said an EIR was not required for this project because the City already has vast up-to-date information and it was found there would be no significant ad- verse impacts to the environment. Jean Curtis, 5 Cinnam9n Lane, asked about proposed on-site parking. Mr. Weber said there were 56 on-site parking spaces proposed. Ms. Curtis said she visits this kind of facility every day and that the parking provided was adequate. She did not feel parking was an issue of concern. John Vanderlip, 99 Vanderlip Drive, asked if any of the staff members visited the Pasadena facility. Director Hightower said she had not visited this facility but was very fami- liar with this type facility. Josephine Templeton, 30042 Via Borica, said she welcomed the project to the City. Mrs. Bradford, 26848 Springcreek, spoke in favor of the project. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart said he visited the Pasadena facility and found that the care given was more than adequate, that the dining facility was very charming, and that the parking was adequate. He was concerned, however, about the number of people in the proposed development. He felt more space should be provided per person. He said private open space was provided in the Pasa- dena facility and each person had adequate patio space. He said after see- ing that facility he understood why the project was designed to provide a garden -type atmosphere. He said there was adequate public transportation in Pasadena, that the facility was located on a fairly level terrain, and was close to medical facilities. Dr. Brown agreed with Mr. McTaggart and agreed with the four points men- tioned in the staff recommendation as a basis for denying the request. He felt it was too intense a development for the site. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the project proposed was too intense a use. He felt there was a need for this type facility and said he had hoped it would be feasible to develop the site at a lower intensity. I Mr. Hughes felt there was probably not a better location for this type facility but was concerned with the most recently proposed numbers. He said he would have difficulty making a finding for that high an intensity. 3/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 48 and Variance No. 36, based on the reasons listed in to- night's staff report. The Commission asked if the applicant was still of the opinion that he could not make this a feasible project without an increase in intensity. Mr. Barron said he was still of that opinion. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: I AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Bacharach Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 9:13 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. with the same members present. SIGN PERMIT NO. 59 Ms. Lavitt reviewed the background of 18 Miraleste Plaza this request for a sign permit. She Applicant: Sun Realty said the signage does not comply with the Code in that there are four identi- fication -signs on the front of the building and the Code allows for one sign per building frontage. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the permit and approve one sign over- head and allow the painted window signs for pedestrian oriented signs. There was no one present to speak on this matter. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny Sign Permit No. 59 and approve one sign overhead and allow the painted window signs under Section 9675 B (6) for pedestrian oriented signs. Mr. McTaggart felt the location of the building made it difficult to find the office, except at night when the lights are on. He felt the signage was necessary. In response to a Commission question, Ms. Lavitt said the amortization period had expired. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: Bacharach CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 37 AMENDMENT Mr. Weber said this amendment would 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South allow for a modification to the vehi- Applicant/Landowner: Hanna -Barbara cular entry to Marineland. He said Marineland the request was simply a change to the site design and would in no way inten- sify the use or patronage of the faci- lity. He said the need for improved vehicular access was established during the environmental process and during the public hearings. In addition to the entry modifications, several changes were proposed to the design of the intersection on Palos Verdes Drive South. He reviewed the plans and dis- cussed the proposed modifications. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the proposed plans subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Mike Downs, general manager of Marineland, responded to concerns and ques- tions of the Commission. 3/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 79-6, thereby amending Conditional Use Permit No. 37, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A". COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about the St. John Fisher lighting. He said the driveway lights had been limited in height, and one of the lights installed was in violation. Mr. Hughes asked the status of the cantilevered tennis court. Director Hightower said the City Attorney had not yet filed against Mr. Holtzman. Dr. Brown asked about removal of the existing structure on the site proposed for the Barron project which was denied tonight. Director Hightower said its removal was a condition of the parcel map, if it could not be used as part of the proposed development. She said if they did not file the final map, the only way 'to handle the situation would be to declare it a nuisance. Dr. Brown said he liked the idea for land management control, as suggested by Tom Cooke, consultant, at the planning conference. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend to the City Council that this be included in next year's budget. Dr. Brown asked about bonding for grading of all kinds. Mr. Weber said the City requires bonding for subdivisions but not for small projects such as decks, etc. Director Hightower said there was difficulty collecting on a bond if anyone defaults and that essentially it is still just an enforcement problem. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred and said the only person that really benefits with a bond is the person issuing the bond. On motion of Dr.'Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, with Mr. Hinchliffe dissenting, the Commission recommended to the City Council that money be allocated in the 1979-80 budget for the study and drafting of an ordinance dealing with land management controls in the City of Rancho -Palos Verdes. The Commission then discussed the possibility of a work session to discuss this and other ideas which had been discussed at the conferfi9ce. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would be agreeable to sending the above recommenda- tion to the City Council, but not before a Commission work session. The Commission decided to not send the recommendation to the City Council until after the work session, which was scheduled for Monday, March 26. Mr. Hughes announced the City Council meetings scheduled for March 14. He said there would be a subcommittee meeting at 6:30 on height variation re- visions, and another on antennas. ADJOURNMENT At 10:50 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Monday, March 26, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. 3/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-