Loading...
PC MINS 197910230 e' M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 23, 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard', by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Karen Heit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, approval of the minutes of the meeting of October 9, 1979 was continued to the next regular meeting. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 10955 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting NE corner Via Lorado and Palos the Commission requested staff to Verdes Drive West investigate alternative means of Applicant: Thomas Outland ingress and egress to the proposed Landowner: E. & B. Slauta lots and to try to plan or predict problems with future access for future divisions of land relative to this parcel map. He referred to the diagram in the staff report, saying that there are four possible additional lots which potentially take access through the existing driveway at 30108'Palos Verdes Drive West. He said for the two proposed lots to take access from that driveway would require a substantial off-site easement, and that direct access off of Palos Verdes Drive West would place vehicles directly into northbound traffic at an ex- tremely bad section with poor visibility due to the curve of the road. Staff recommended approval of the parcel map per the draft resolution which the Commission received at the last meeting. Mr. Hughes said he was satisfied at this point that they have looked as far to the future as possible. He said all things considered the access proposed was the best there was available, that in terms of the General Plan anything else would probably be less satisfactory. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously car- ried, the Commission adopted Resolution P.C. No. 70-15, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 10955 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 42 Mr. Weber said the City recently re - Extension ceived a letter from Marymount College Marymount Palos Verdes College requesting to extend the expiration date of its conditional use permit eight months to work out some problems that they are having. Staff recommended approval of the extension to July 14, 1980. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Weber said the Code allows an extension for a reasonable time per the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Hughes wondered if a one-year extension would be more reasonable to allow for a little extra time, but the other Commissioners did not wish the extension to be any longer than necessary. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, Conditional use Permit No. 42 was extended eight months, as requested by the applicant and as recommended by staff. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. ZONE CHANGE NO. 5 Mr. Weber said the applicant called staff today and requested that if possible this item be moved to later on the agenda because he was going to be at another meeting and would try to be here by 8:30 p.m. Mrs. Bacharach asked how many people were in the audience to speak on this item. Mr. Hinchliffe noted there was only one person, who indicated no opposition to the delay. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, agenda items A and B were switched and the Commission would further delay item A if necessary. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11896 Ms. Heit said this request was for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 52 lot split in an RS -1 (RPD) zoning West side of Palos Verdes Drive district and a decision must be made West at City boundary by May 15, 1980. She described the Applicant/Landowner: W. Kildeszew project site and its location and said no construction or grading was proposed at this time. She reviewed the topography, geology, archaeology, and referred to the chart comparing the project specifications to the Code requirements, noting that the only requirement not met would be the 30 -percent common open space requirement which can be waived by the Commission. Areas of concern included grading, access, view protection, and natural environment. Staff recommended ap- proval of the project subject to the conditions attached to the draft reso- lution. In response to a Commission question, Director Hightower said the zoning of RS -1 (RPD) was placed on subregion 1 and 7. She said in subregion 1 the view was one reason and another was the flower gardening. Mr. Hughes wondered if it was feasible for the City to require that the access to the bluff be developed rather than the City collecting a park- land dedication fee. Mr. Weber said it would be possible to require development of the easement, and that per State law there could be a 50 -percent reduction on parkland dedication fees under certain circumstances. Mr. McTaggart felt CC&Rs between two owners were impractical. He felt regular development standards for single family homes should be --met when the lots are developed. Mr. Hinchliffe explained public hearing procedures and the public hearing was opened. Dick Kildiszew, owner of the property, said the difference between the elevations are.such that presently one cannot safely descend from +4-fe Palos Verdesftgt�� �' to the Rancho Palos Verdes side. He said he read and understood the recommended conditions of approval for the parcel map. William Sullivan, 2976 Via Alvarado, was concerned about view obstruction and asked questions related to the current height restriction and grading Code. 10/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Elinor Wiedmann said she lived directly opposite lot 2. She was concerned about view obstruction and hoped that the property owner and the City will find a way to keep views from being blocked. Dr. Pratt, 3282 Paseo Del Mar, wondered what arrangements had been made to develop the access. He said there was currently a gravel road paid for by the present owners. He said he just purchased the property and did not think there was an easement there. Mr. Weber said one of the conditions of approval (#14) requires the appli- cant to provide proof of access to parcel #1 and delineate on the final map. Dr. Pratt was concerned about the access easement to the bluff. He said people have direct access now in Palos Verdes Estates to the bluffs where there is already adequate parking. Mr. Hughes said the City has proposed in its Local Coastal Program to pro- vide reasonable access to the bluff lines in exchange for high density. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes preferred to have improvements done rather than collecting a fee for later improvements of the access easement. He said sometimes the improvements do not take place. Director Hightower said at this point the easement would not go through to the bluff. Staff felt the easement should be obtained now so that in the future it could be developed all the way through. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with Mr. Hughes' concern. Mrs. Bacharach also agreed. She felt this easement should be improved as far as it goes and then when the next subdivision occurs the improvement could be continued. Mr. Hughes said the City requires street improvements, curbs, gutters, etc. He said the City has the ability to have those things taken care of now. Mrs. Bacharach also felt that the buyers of lots 1 and 2 should be apprised at the time of purchase that there is a pedestrian easement going by their homes. Mr. McTaggart felt an improved easement leading to nowhere was not really an improvement. He felt it made more sense to hold it until the additional land was obtained and then have the City develop the access to the bluffs. Mr. Hughes was also concerned about approving projects without the benefit of input from the coastal planning study that is to take place. He felt it would be worthwhile from a planning point of view to wait for that over- view. Director Hightower said the time frame for that was about four months, but that it may be longer. She said the Commission could continue this item pending input from that study, and reminded the Commission that a decision on this project must be made by May of next year. Mr. McTaggart said he was uncomfortable about approving a conditional use permit that did not include structure locations. The consensus of the Commission was for the easement improvements to be made, to wait for input from the coastal planning study before making a decision, and that structure locations under the conditional use permit be reviewed by the Commission prior to a decision. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to continue Tenta- tive Parcel Map No. 11896 and Conditional Use Permit No. 52 to a meeting 10/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- on or before the second regular meeting in March of 1980 in order to wait for the consultant's study of the coastal area, in order to come up with trail standards, and for submittal of structure locations and elevations, as limitations will be placed on this conditional use permit establishing building sites and ridgelines. The above motion was unanimously carried. RECESS At 9:03 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:14 p.m. with the -same members present. ZONE CHANGE NO. 5 Mr. Weber said the request was to Former Los Cerros School site change the Institutional zoning on Former Tierra Alta School site two former school sites to a single Applicants: G. F. Goeden and family residential designation: the Richard Dyer (c/o Lanco) Los Cerros site to be changed to RS -3, minimum lot size 1 000 square feet; and the Tierra Alta site to be changed to RS -4, minimum lot size 1,X4,000 square feet. He said a General Plan Amend- ment was approved on October 2, 1979, and that the next logical step was a zone change to reflect that amendment. He explained that the Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council. He said the primary con- sideration was for land use and zoning compatibility. In staff's opinion the proposals were reasonable and compatible with the surrounding areas. He said because of potential visual impact, the Land Use Map has been re- vised to include an Urban Control District over the Los Cerros site. He said in staff's opinion the properties can be subdivided to meet the stan- dards in the Code and noted that the Commission and Council will review the subdivision plans at the time of submittal and should deny any design that is not consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. He referred to the chart in the staff report which summarized major subdivi- sion requirements for each site. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the draft resolution recommending approval of Zone Change No. 5 to the City Council. Mr. Hinchliffe explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. Mike Nichols, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie, Torrance, said the Tierra Alta site was surrounded on three sides by RS -4 zoning. He said on the fourth side was the antenna farm, but it is also zoned RS -4. He said the adjacent land on three sides of the Los Cerros site was zoned RS -3. He said this zoning was more dense that the property in the Monaco tract. He said it was his understanding that there was no intention to develop either site under Residential Planned Development. Brian Tilley, 29026 Indian Valley Road, Rolling Hills Estates, was con- cerned about view protection and drainage control. He said there was an existing drainage problem with drainage from the hill flowing onto his property. He said he still has a reasonable view and hoped it would be maintained. He said he began experiencing drainage problems after the development in Rolling Hills Estates which created the bank. He said rocks fall down and crash into his fence, causing damage. As there were no other speakers and no objections, Mr. Hinchliffe closed the public hearing. Mrs. Bacharach said the zoning was compatible with the surrounding sites and felt this was reasonable zoning for both sites. Dr. Brown concurred. He said he appreciated the comments made by the last speaker and hoped he would follow along in the process of this pro- posal. 10/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 -4- On motion -of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution P.C. No. 79-16, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 53 Ms. Heit said this request was for 5975 Armaga Spring Road parking lot lighting to be located Applicant/Landowner: Mt. Olive in an Institutional zoning district. Lutheran Church She said the subject parking lot was located in the front portion of the church site. She discussed the ele- vations of the proposed fixtures and the surrounding elevations, and re- viewed the zoning of the surrounding areas. She said the lighting plan calls for four 400 -watt metal halide lamps mounted two per pole at a height of 22 feet. She said the fixture will have textured glass lens and the street side fixtures will be tilted up at a 5 -degree angle towards the street. She said the applicant stated that the lights are to be used for parking lot safety and security and would be used sed about three nights per week from 7 to 10 p.m. She said the applicant also stated there is a remote possibility for one lamp on the western pole to be placed on a timer and left on all night for security; however, an alternative plan utilizing existing landscape lighting was currently being considered. She said no outdoor lighting is permitted which results in direct illumination direct viewing of the light. She said as proposed the fixtures will be directly visible from at least ten surrounding residences, although the potential for impact exists for only five of those residences. She said the lights would produce .2 foot candles at a distance of approximately 200 feet, which represents significant off-site illumination. She said staff has recommended that the poles be lowered to a maximum height of ten feet and that there be shielding. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. John Schuricht, 304 Tejon Place, Palos Verdes Estates, chairman of the Board of Trustees for the church, said he was a registered civil engineer for South Bay Engineering. He said the church has been there for 14 to 15 years without lighting because of the cost. He said the reason they decided to install the lights was because of a recent injury to someone leaving the church in the evening and because of all the vandalism which has occurred. He said -they have security problems and described some of the types of vandalism which has occurred. He said they have filed police reports and the police suggest that they install good lighting and fencing. He said they have in the past designed metal skirts for shielding, the same design as those used on the Palos Verdes Estates tennis courts. He said the reason for the 22 -foot height of the fixtures was to provide even, low lighting all along the property, that 10 -foot high fixtures would re- sult in bright spots surrounded by darkness. He said the higher lights would not be as glaring in foggy conditions. He said there would be no reflection from the parking lot which was black. He said they could eliminate any direct viewing of the light source. He said they could get what they need with 400 watts and that at 22 feet they do need the metal halide lighting. Mr. Hughes suggested trimming the trees to obtain more lighting from the street lights and the use of low lighting, as he felt they could achieve the same thing with lighting fixtures a few feet above the ground. He was not sure that lighting would eliminate the vandalism. Mr. Schruicht said there was a constant problem with replacing low fix- tures due to vandalism. He assured the Commission there would be no spill-over with the lighting proposed. Mr. Hughes said the Code limits the height of lighting in residential areas to ten feet. He said it has been his experience that the higher the lights, the greater the spill-over. Mr. Schuricht said they designed the lights for Palos Verdes Estates tennis courts using the skirts he previously mentioned. He said they were able to satisfy that City, which has very strict lighting standards. 10/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mrs. Bacharach asked if the Palos Verdes Estates tennis court lighting would be a fair comparison. Mr. Schuricht said yes, except that the lighting on the tennis courts was of a much higher intensity than that proposed for this project. Matt Hansen, 5211 Silver Arrow -Drivel; said the lights at the Mormon Church do not meet the requirements that are being imposed on this pro3ect. He said low level lighting would require many fixtures to obtain the lighting they need. He said they could not afford 50 light fixtures. He said a cost analysis had been done before the application was filed. Mr. Grovene, a member of the church, said the lights in the parkway are street oriented and the church is placed far back from the street. He said over the years they have tried various methods of vandal-pro6fing the ground lighting which they have had, with no success. Mr. Hinchliffe said it appeared some of the Commissioners felt all of the alternatives have not been explored. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said the Commission has seen this situation many times and that the higher the'lights, the more problems there were. He said they have seen almost every kind of fixture. The higher the light, the more visible it becomes, and the more it interferes with views. He said he was very uncomfortable about approving lights adjacent to a residential area. He said he felt there were other alternatives. He suggested that the Commis- sion look at the Palos Verdes Estates tennis court lights. Mrs. Bacharach said she drove around the subject site in the evening and when she turned off her car lights, it was extremely dark. She felt they did need some kind of lighting. She said if the applicant was not willing to lower the lights, she would like to observe the lights at the tennis court before making a decision. Dr. Brown said he could not see any reason why the lights should be higher than ten feet. He asked if these lights were similar to those used at the Kramer Club and Marymount tennis courts. Mr. Schuricht said they were similar. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the item was continued to allow the Commission to inspect similar lighting. Mr. Hinchliffe said hopefully this item would be on the next agenda. Mrs. Bacharach suggested that other alternatives be explored by the appli- cant in the meantime. VARIANCE NO. 40 Mr. Weber explained the background of 30327 Kingsridge Drive this project and said the request was Applicant: Ralph Galante for the construction of a single family residence with a maximum height of 34 feet 6 inches, measured from the subterranean garage slab to the ridgeline. He reviewed the four findings which must be made in order to grant a variance, and staff's response to each of them. He referred to the applicant's letter. Staff's analysis of the four required findings for a variance revealed that only one could be positively made, which was insufficient cause to grant this variance. Staff, therefore, recommended denial of the request. Mr. Hughes asked about l.c. of the applicant's letter. Mr. Weber said apparently the applicant came into the office and either misinterpreted the requirements or the planner with which he was speaking 10/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- presented them wrong. He said the applicant was of the understanding that the measurement would be made from some other place. He said the intent of the Code was always the same and the method of measurement was always the same. He said the requirements have not been changed, that it was either a matter of misinterpretation or misrepresentation. Mr. Hinchliffe asked what alternatives would be acceptable. Mr. Weber said it was difficult to make a detailed evaluation because the grading plan was incomplete. He said based on what staff does know, the driveway as proposed is designed to be relatively flat, that the applicant is not taking advantage of the maximum 20 percent slope. He said the main part of the structure has the potential of coming down further, and there is also the possibility of lowering the pitch of the roof. He said this was the only proposal submitted. He said it was a small lot and a difficult lot to build on, but in staff's opinion, it could be developed to meet the Code. He said the area of the lot was 6738 square feet and the application indicates the house to be 2265 square feet. I The public hearing was opened. Ralph Galante, 30327 Kingsridge Drive, said in August of 1978 he had mailed to him a set of rules. He said he brought a preliminary sketch into the office and talked to a planner. He said the garage is below grade, that cutting down further into the lot would require retaining walls all along the lot. He said there was a 40 -foot shale bank in the rear. He said his architect read the Code and agreed that he was in conformance, that the measurement comes to 26 feet. He said the square footage of the house was 3800. Dennis Suttlevich, 1441 Alvera Street, general contractor, said this particular lot was very small and they could not build a single story home because Mr. Galante has a large family. He said they lack sufficient depth on the lot to accommodate the home. Mr. McTaggart said by purchasing this lot the applicant created a hardship upon himself. Dr. Brown felt this would be the largest home on the street. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said the lot was smaller than any lot the City would allow to be created. His initial reaction was that the home was much too large for the lot. He said the fact that there may have been some misinterpretation between the City and the applicant was the reason for plan check. He felt there were a number of things which could be done, that there are correc- tive measures which could be taken that would make this house fall under the height variation category. He could not make the required findings. Dr. Brown concurred and felt there were alternatives. He said he could not make the -findings. Mrs. Bacharach and Mr. McTaggart also agreed with Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hinchliffe said in order to grant a variance the Commission must make all four required findings. He said it was the consensus of the Commis- sion that all of those findings cannot be made. He said he could not find an error on the part of staff since no approvals had been given and no per- mits had been issued. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution P.C. No. 79-17 denying Variance No. 40. 10/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart expressed concern and felt there should be some way of re- opening the conditional use permit for Ner Tamid, as their lights do not meet the Code. Dr. Brown wondered if there had been any complaints about the street at Crest and Crenshaw, as there is debris in the public right-of-way. ADJOURNMENT At 11:35 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, November 13, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. 10/23/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-