Loading...
PC MINS 19790911M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 11, 1979 nC-, a­vz� a 5 coy) The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Vice -chairperson Bacharach. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Bacharach ABSENT: Hinchliffe Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Keith Turner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of August 14, 1979, were approved with the following amendments: page 4, 8th para- graph, should read "...said it would have been really helpful...... agenda packets, and she requested their inclusion in the future."; and page 4, add to the end of the 9th paragraph, "The Commission concurred." On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of August 28, 1979, were approved as submitted. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 5649 REVISION Mr. Weber referred to the letter from 6500 Via Colinita (Lots 1 & 2, the applicants' attorney requesting Block 1, Tract 9302) that the Commission waive condition Landowners/Applicants: Robert and no. 4 of Resolution P.C. No. 77-5. He Shirley Farley, and Vernita explained that the condition was recom- Robinson mended by the County and is intended to fulfill a requirement of the Map Act which requires the subdivider to pay special assessments or bonds in full or file a security. He said after dis- cussions with the County Engineer's office, the County Assessments Section, and the City Attorney, the consensus appeared to be that the map cannot be recorded until the bonds are paid in full or a security is filed, whether the Commission waives the condition or not. He said the State Map Act now permits lot line adjustments to be exempt from the Act but that since the City's Subdivision Ordinance does not exempt such projects, the parcel map process cannot be waived. Staff recommended that the Commission not waive the subject condition based on State law and opinions from persons consulted. In lieu of waiving the condition, the City Attorney recommended that the applicants post a bond guaranteeing the payment of the improvement bonds or that they be paid in full. Robert Farley said he had nothing to add to Mr. Weber's comments, but was available to answer any Commission questions. After Commission discussion, Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to modify condition no. 4 of Resolution P.C. No. 77-5 to read as follows: "Prior to filing of final map the applicant shall post a bond guaranteeing the payment of the improvements for Assessment No. 35 and 36 of County Improvement No. 2515, or that it be paid in full." Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Bacharach NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Mrs. Bacharach advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. PARCEL MAP NO. 7559 REACTIVATION Mr. Weber said the tentative map was West of termination of Tarragon Rd. approved on November 8, 1977, and one Applicant: Ray Mathys extension had been granted allowing Landowner: Kenneth K. Wong until May 18, 1979 to -record the final map. He explained that the expiration date passed without another request for extension and, subsequently, the applicant submitted a request to reactivate the map. He said the map must go through normal procedures, that a re- evaluation of the potential environmental impacts was done, that a Negative Declaration was issued, and that a decision must be made on the project by August 3, 1980. He said the proposed project was identical to that which had been previously tentatively approved. He said issues which will require certain changes in the conditions of approval included hydrology, archaeolo- gic resources, and parkland dedication. He explained that since the time of the original map approval (1) the City has become aware of certain defi- ciencies in the drainage system in and adjacent to the property, (2) a study was undertaken to determine the presence of any cultural resources on the site, and (3) a year or more has passed since the parkland dedication fee (which is based on "fair market value") was established and, therefore, needs re-evaluation to determine its accuracy. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution, with a proposed revision to condition no. 11 which was distributed this evening to the Commission. Ray Mathys, 5638 Whitecliff Drive, representing Mr. Wong, said they were in agreement with the staff report and conditions. After Commission discussion, Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution P.C. No: 79-13, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 7559, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", as amended this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Bacharach NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Mrs. Bacharach advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8744 Mr. Turner explained that the tentative Modification to conditions map was approved on March 28, 1978 with 3200 Palos Verdes Drive West a condition requiring the improvement Applicant/Landowner: F. & L. Miller and dedication of Via Victoria and a cul-de-sac bulb to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Subsequent to that and because the residents of the area were requesting that the street either be widened or a sidewalk be installed to accommodate school children in the neighborhood, the City Council directed the Public Works Director and Traffic Committee to research the matter and come up with an appropriate recommendation. In May the Public Works Director submitted his recommenda- tions for the improvements and several discussions of modifications have been held between the City and the applicant. He said in July the Public Works Director reaffirmed his decision and referred the Commission to the August 16, 1979 memo which contained the arguments and recommendation. Mr. Turner explained that the applicant has submitted a letter indicating the desire to discuss this matter with the Commission Morgan Ralls, 1020 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach; representing the applicants, said the condition creates a hardship for the applicants. He said any widening of the street would make the existing wall inadequate and require the construction of an 8 -foot retaining wall which would be very expensive. He felt the widening should be required at the time that the rest of the property is developed, that it would be a waste of money 9/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- 0- 0 now. He said the applicants' request is to allow llow them to defer the widening of the street in front of lot 1 until the ­§_fte,,'is developed. Re safety of children, he said there were 5 existing homes in the area and they were only proposing 2 more. He said the only people who could interfere with the safe- ty of the children were the parents of those children. He said there is a substantial amount of landscaping involved which would have to be removed. He said the applicants would dedicate the property now and record a covenant on the property insuring to the City that the street will be widened. He said they would fully improve the front of lots 2 and 3 now. The Commission felt that the applicants' suggestion was reasonable and felt they and their attorney should meet with the Public Works Director and Plan- ning staff and work out the details of such a condition. Mr. Hughes said when the decision was made the Commission was responding to the desire to meet the street standards of the City and that no one realized the impact this would have on the undivided part of the property. He did not feel it was the City's position to force an unnecessary hardship on any- one or that the lack of a sidewalk for that distance was significant. Mr. Turner said what the -Commission was proposing falls in line with the desire of the Public Works Director as long as the dedication occurs, and that from his point of view, as long as a covenant is -recorded. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like some kind of compromise reached. They felt that the curbing could remain as it is on the portion that will not have new lots, provided the City is assured of the sidewalk through a dedication and covenant and that the cul-de-sac be developed. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, that staff arrange a meeting between the applicant and the Public Works Director and Planning staff for the purpose of: A. Arriving at some compromise that would permit the subdivision of the property for 3 lots and require the completion of the cul-de- sac and the sidewalk and other improvements meeting the current street standards where the street fronts lots 2 and 3. B. The right -6f -way being taken through the appropriate mechanism for the future improvements of the street in front of what will be lot 1. C. Placing a condition that at the time of future subdivision of lot 1 the street be widened to the appropriate standards. D. If it is the feeling of the Public Works Director that if appro- priate "no parking" signs be posted on the street in front of lot 1. Mr. Turner said the Public Works Director has already indicated his opposi- tion to "no parking" signs. The Commission removed the last portion of the motion relating to "no parking" signs. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Bacharach NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Mr. Ralls requested that the item return to the Commission and that it be continued from this meeting to a date certain. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to the next regular meeting. 9/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 Mr. Turner explained that this proposed "Hawthorne" site and "Armaga amendment would change the land use Spring" site designation of the two former school Applicant/Landowners: G. F. Goeden, sites from Institutional -Educational to Richard Dyer (c/o Lanco Eng.) Residential 2-4 dwelling units per acre. He said although two sites are involved, only one General Plan Amendment was 'being considered. He reviewed the background of -.the request and the area and project descriptions. He said the important issues identified by staff- for the "Hawthorne" site were land use compatibility, visual impact, and noise; that the only important issue identified for the "Armaga Spring" site was land use compatibility. Given the potential associated impacts of insti- tutional -type developments, staff concluded that low density residential land usage was a logical alternative to the existing classifications for both sites. Given that the School District has determined that the need for these sites for educational purposes no longer exists, staff concluded that a resi- dential land use classification of similar densities to the surrounding area was more compatible than an institutional classification. He referred to a chart showing the zoning classifications and standards which were available to direct development of the sites. Staff recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to amend the General Plan as proposed for both sites, that the easternmost one-third of the Hawthorne site be designated with an Urban Appearance Overlay Control District in - order to protect and enhance the visual qualities of the community as seen from Hawthorne Boulevard, and that the Commission consider (at the zone change phase) that an agreement between the City and the landowner and his successors be filed which would require the landowner to remove the existing vegetation along Hawthorne Boulevard. Mr. Turner noted a correction in the last paragraph on page 3 of the initial study, "33 percent" should read "3.3 percent." Public hearing was opened. Clark M. Leonard, Lanco Engineering, representing the owners and developers of both sites, said he has read and agreed with the staff report. Steve Zavitz, 30037 Avenida Esplendida, said he would like to keep the den- sity at 2 dwelling units per acre at the Hawthorne site. He expressed con- cern with existing traffic. Gary Schaumann, 30105 Avenida Esplendida, said he would like a maximum den- sity of 3 dwelling units per acre. He said he would also like the -amendment to require that this site fall under the jurisdiction of the Monte Verde Homeowners Association. Mr. Hughes did not feel the City could require the site to be part of the Association and felt it was something that the owner would have to agree to. Mr. McTaggart suggested that staff check with the City Attorney re what the City can require downstream in the way of homeowner association jurisdiction. Mr. Weber said he would check with the City Attorney and noted that in the past the City has required that the CC&Rs conform to those of the adjacent homeowners association. Clark Leonard said they were agreeable to RS -3 zoning for the Hawthorne site, which would be 3 dwelling units per acre. Ernest Klinger, 30165 Avenida Esplendida, said there was a problem with the land use compatibility at 4 dwelling units per acre because all the homes in the area were on one-half acre lots. He was also concerned about traffic. Mr. Turner explained the land use categories available in the General Plan and their density ranges. He said the traffic was addressed in the initial study and that the traffic counts on Avenida Esplendida and Avenida Classica were considered to be well below capacity. Mr. Weber explained the things considered in doing a traffic study. 9/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. Hughes said one of the major elements of the General Plan was a detailed traffic analysis of the entire city. Mr. Turner said there will be attention paid to traffic safety, but at a later time. Neil Stefanides, 30147 Avenida Esplendida, suggested that the access be from Avenida Classica rather than Avenida Esplendida. Jean Perbix, 29102 Indian Valley Road, Rolling Hills Estates, hoped the developer was not considering huge homes on small lots. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes wondered if the lots being subdivided would meet the Development Code and density. Mrs. Bacharach suggested before the zone change the City determine if the lots could be divided to meet the Code. Mr. Hughes asked about the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District and said that was a major view corridor and they should be sure they have ade- quate controls. Mr. Turner said it was to enhance and ensure the views and make sure the development has a positive relationship. He said the area would be more closely defined at the zone change phase and more specifically at the sub- division stage. Dr. Brown suggested the overlay control district cover the entire area rather than one-third at this point. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to forward to the City Council a recommendation for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 5, recommending a change from Institutional to Residential 2-4 dwelling units per acre on both sites and that an Urban Appearance Overlay Control District be designated for the former Los Cerros School site. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Bacharach NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Beryl Tilley, 29026 Indian Valley, asked for clarification on what portion of the acreage would be used for roads. Mr. Turner explained. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes discussed the Southwest Area Planning Council workshop meeing that he and Mrs. Bacharach attended on Sep- tember 8. He said it appeared that Rancho Palos Verdes was the only city not in the process of updating its housing element of the General Plan. Mr. Weber said the Council had initiated a General Plan amendment to revise the housing element. Mr. Hughes asked who was responsible for the tumbleweeds between the wall and the street at the Alta Vista tract. Mr. Turner said the developer was technically responsible because the im- provements were not all completed and accepted, but that the City was res- ponsible for the delay as it wants the money to do the improvements after the street standards study is adopted. Mr. Hughes' said there should be a -K-0ning map and/or a City map hanging at the meetings so that the audience can see what the Commission is talking about. 9/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 E • Re the structure on Palos Verdes Properties' lot on Crestridge, Dr. Brown said neighbors are going to be sending letters to the City for its removal. Dr. Brown said the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association was opposing the antenna structure requested in Minor Exception Permit No. 68 and would be sending a letter to that effect. He said he abstained from veting on the ma-tte�. Mrs. Bacharach suggested the Commission begin re -reading the General Plan, as was suggested at the Southwest Area Planning Council workshbp meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 11:00 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, September 25, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. 9/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-