Loading...
PC MINS 19790327/tj-91 M I -N_ U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 27, 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe (late arrival), McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Plan- ners Gary Weber and Keith Turner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and carried, with Mrs. Bacharach abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of March 13, 1979, were approved with the following correc- tions: page 2, 7th complete paragraph, line 3, "synagogue"; page 2, 10th complete paragraph, line 1, "said"; page 3, paragraph 5, "Cinnamon"; page 5, paragraph 14, line 2, "conference". CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 48 Mr. Turner explained that this was the VARIANCE NO. 36 formal resolution for the action taken Adoption of Resolution at the last Commission meeting denying the project. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt Resolution No. 79-7, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 48 and Variance No. 36. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 42 REVISION Mr. Turner said the dormitory project 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East was approved on November 14, 1978. He Landowner/Applicant: Marymount said several revisions are proposed as Palos Verdes College a result of review and input by the Fire Department for a fire access road and hammerhead turnaround. He said 1) pad elevations for buildings have been lowered, as listed in the staff report; 2) minor adjustments in building locations to allow for construction of the required fire road have been made; 3) parking lot configuration has changed slightly (no loss of parking spaces); 4) building #3 and building #5 have been interchanged; and 5) the grading plan for the project has been revised in order to accommodate the fire road and revised building locations. The soils investigation revealed that a "shear key" would be required under buildings #1, 2 and 3 only, that the rest of the site retains the natural buttressing effect of the natural slope. Staff had no concerns with the required corrective grading as long as the natural contours are re-established. Staff had no concerns regarding the revised grading as long as techniques are implemented which make the slopes appear as natural as feasible. Condi- tions were proposed to accomplish both of these. Staff recommended an amend- ment to the criteria for landscaping as listed in the November 14, 1978 staff report. Mr. Turner reviewed drawings and referred to two other pro- posed conditions to the resolution, as handed out this evening. Staff recommended approval of the amendment subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", as modified this evening. Mr. Hinchliffe arrived at 7:50 p.m. There was no one in the audience to speak on this matter. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, condition #7 was added to Exhibit "A" - "that the applicable criteria for landscaping listed in the November 14, 1978 staff report be modified as of March 27, 1979.11 Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 79-8, thereby amending Conditional Use Permit No. 42, sub- ject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", as modified this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36345 Mr. Weber said there was also a variance CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 49 originally proposed for this project Island View Drive (lots 4-6, concerning height, but that plans had Tract 27090) been revised which eliminated the need Landowner: Island View Inv., Co. for a variance. He said the request Applicant: Thomas Huang was to subdivide a .87 acre parcel into a 10 -unit residential condominium development, to include attached multi- family dwelling units, common open space, recreation facilities, private access, and the installation of required infrastructure improvements. He reviewed the procedural requirements, the area description, the zoning, the General Plan, and referred to the table in the staff report for a comparison of the project to applicable Code standards. He said the units would be situated on the site in four separate structures and that there were two basic floor plans. He said the major issue appeared to be vehicular access and parking. He reviewed the concerns of the Fire Department, City Engineer, and staff regarding driveway width. Staff was also concerned with the turn- around potential and the maneuvering necessary for ingress and egress with respect to the two motorcourts proposed. He said the Public Works Director was concerned about the number of driveways (curb -cuts) on Island View. He said the five points of access proposed accounted foiff about 51 percent of the frontage and that a rule of thumb, according to the Director of Public Works, would be about 20 percent coverage. Staff was also concerned with the narrow neck in the direct access driveways serving units 1-6. He said the obvious solution would be to provide additional pavement, but staff felt that was not acceptable since the pavement area already exceeded 25 percent of the total site. He reviewed the grading proposed for the project and pointed out that little or no natural grade currently exists. He re- ferred to photographs taken from adjacent properties and discussed those areas where view obstruction would occur. He said staff has determined that there was no public view over the site. He said this was a difficult site to develop and that the applicant has tried to keep the structures low to protect views and to maintain an open character of the project. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony and discuss major issues, such as the access/circulation and parking problem, reducing curb cuts to two or three, maintaining an open character with re- vision, and maintaining a low profile. He suggested subterranean parking might be a valid approach. He said essentially the whole site was being graded and that pushing the grading down more could help the situation and give a lower profile. He said the whole project could be oriented more towards the Island View side. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said there does not appear to be any major areas of uncompacted fill. He said the zone allows the struc- tures to go up to 30 feet in height. Mr. Hughes explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. 3/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Michael Smith, architectural office of Lowell Lusk, said they were attempt- ing to create an open appearance. He described the adjacent structures and their heights and said they were trying to preserve the views of adjacent properties. He said they had been apprised that the curb cuts were con- sidered excessive and have revised their plan to show three curb cuts total. He said they were prepared to widen the fire lanes. He did not feel there was a problem with the motorcourts. He felt people would use the garages for the direct access into the house, rather than using an exterior stair, and that the CC&Rs would require use of the garages. He said they have transferred pavement from the pool area to the parking area to alleviate any problems with the turning radius. He showed the revised plans to the Commission. He discussed the drainage and said doing it differently would represent an economic concern. Roger Miller, 22 Pear Tree Lane, Rolling Hills Park Villas, said the build- ings on either side of the project to which the applicant referred were built under County standards. He felt the density was too high even though the zoning allows it. He felt there was too much concrete and not enough landscaping proposed which could be corrected if the density was decreased. He expressed concern with the parking and traffic problems of the area. John Graham, 29600 Island View Drive, #309, suggested a revised layout for the project. Jim Golden, 4 Coral Tree, Rolling Hills Park Villas, was concerned about loss of view and density. He said their community was trying to maintain a certain look to the area. Evelyn Davis, 6 Coral Tree Lane, said she would lose her view and was con- cerned about the design of the building. Ann Fishman, 9 Coral Tree Lane, was concerned about the traffic on Island View. She said there was a lot of traffic at the intersection at Hawthorne Boulevard which would be compounded by the construction of Ralph's Market. She was also concerned about the lack of green area the project proposes. She asked what type of roof and exterior materials would be used. Mr. Smith said the plans were coming from the same architectural firm that designed the Rolling Hills Park Villas. He said there would be Spanish style roofs, stucco with wood facia board exteriors. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hinchliffe asked staff's response to the revised plans. Mr. Weber said he still had essentially the same concerns, and would have to thoroughly review the plans to determine if there were any other prob- lems. Mr. McTaggart said the site was located in a cold corridor of the City and he doubted that anyone would use the swimming pool or deck. He suggested eliminating the pool, as he felt the project was covered with too much hard surface. Mrs. Bacharach disagreed about the pool as she felt it was a nice amenity, but she felt the project looked like a motor court motel with all the grass on the perimeter and the concrete in the center. She felt different designs should be considered. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred with staff's concerns. He felt subterranean park- ing should be explored. He felt consideration should be given to alterna- tives that may cost more money but would be better for the project. He said there could be view corridors also. Dr. Brown concurred and said the five points in the staff report were the key elements to what should be done. He felt if it required the elimination of one unit to achieve this, it should be done. 3/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. Hughes agreed with Dr. Brown and said it does not have to be built to the maximum density allowed. He said he would not like to see removal of the pool to achieve the additional open space. He felt staff's criteria re alternative design were -Viable suggestions. He particularly liked the idea of subterranean parking. He felt the units should be designed to give view over the others, but that should not be the primary concern of the development. Mr. Hinchliffe moved to direct the applicant to give further consideration to a re -design of the project based on staff and Commission concerns. This motion was seconded by Mr. McTaggart. After further Commission discussion, the above motion and second were with- drawn. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the applicant was directed to re -design the project taking into consideration the criteria discussed by the staff and the Commission, and the matter was continued until the applicant submits to staff an acceptable re -designed project. Mr. Hughes explained to the audience that the public hearing was continued until the applicant submits re -designs that meet the criteria as outlined in the staff report this evening and responds to the concerns of the Com- mission this evening. He said there would be no further notice on this matter and that anyone interested should contact the City to find out when this will be back on the Commission agenda. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower reviewed the draft motion from the Commission to the City Council in response to the Commission's meeting last night, asking the City Council to take the first step to con- sider the project of developing land management controls. The Commission felt the motion should convey the gravity of the issue and that the Commission was seriously concerned that the efforts over the years on the Coastal Plan would be jeopardized if action was not taken. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved sending the motion to the City Council with the additional wording as suggested this evening. Mr. Hughes suggested that appropriate lobbying on the part of the Commission be done. Director Hightower said the City Council and department heads would be dis- cussing major issues (goals) of the City for next year on Saturday, March 31. ADJOURNMENT At 9:40 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, April 10, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. 3/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-