Loading...
PC MINS 19791127M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting November 27, 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart (late arrival), Hinchliffe 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 Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of November 13, 1979 were approved with the following amendment: page 2, 10th full paragraph, line 2, should read "...would be done by now." GRADING NO. 400 APPEAL Mr. Weber said the request was for 558 1 Headland Drive cubic yards of grading to create a Appellant: Doo B. Song flat area in the rear of the property to accommodate a full size tennis court. He said staff denied the appli- cation on October 19, 1979, for the reasons listed in the staff report. He said staff had worked with the applicant for some time both prior to the submittal of the application and afterwards. In staff's opinion the sub- ject property cannot facilitate the proposed tennis court and remain within the limits of the Development Code. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal of Grading No. 400. In response to a question of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Weber said the maximum pro- posed height of downslope retaining walls was 11 feet. Edna C. Crest, 20343 Madison, Torrance, said neither applicant could be present tonight and that she was a friend present to represent the appli- cants. She asked questions of staff. Dr. Brown said he spoke with Mrs. Song when he went to inspect the site on Sunday and that she was aware of tonight's meeting. He felt there was enough information to indicate that the project should be denied. Mr. Hughes concurred. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the appeal of the denial of Grading No. 400 was denied for the following reasons: 1) Height of fill exceeds five feet. 2) Project exceeds the allowed number of downslope retaining walls. 3) Project exceeds the allowed maximum height of downslope retaining walls. 4) Project exceeds the allowed maximum percentage of created slopes. 5) Grading does not minimize disturbance to natural contours, and finished contours are not reasonably natural. 6) Grading is excessive beyond that necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen days. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8947 Mr. Weber said this parcel map was 99 Vanderlip Road originally approved March 28, 1978, Applicant/Landowner: Narvan Corp. but during the final map process the expiration date passed without a re- quest for extension of the one-year time limit. He said because the Landslide Moratorium had been enacted staff could not accept the applicant's request for reactivation until the moratorium ordinance was amended by the Council on September 4, 1979. He said the map was resubmitted September 25. He said a re-evaluation of the potential environmental impacts was done and a final Negative Declaration was issued on November 16. He said a decision must be made on the project by September 25, 1980. He said staff has reviewed the map and can find no major issues or concerns regarding subdivision design that have not been previously discussed and/or resolved, other than the landslide. He said, however, that the situation regarding the lot split is essentially the same since the Commission acted before being aware of potential geology problems and imposed conditions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public and specifically the City and future owners. He discussed the applicant's requested change to condition no. 2 of Exhibit "A". Staff recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 8947 subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution, as recommended by staff, without changing condition no. 2. John Vanderlip, 99 Vanderlip Drive, said the reason for requesting a change to condition no. 2 was that he had been informed of other methods of dis- posal such as one being used in San Diego. He said his geologist indicated that there should be some method possible to take care of sewage even if the method used in San Diego was not approved by Los Angeles County. He did not feel they should be forced to wait until sewers are put into the area. He felt they should have some flexibility and said this would only apply to lot #1. He said the problem was that the present sewer lines were so far away. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, said the minimum cost would be $35,000 to run the sewer line 3500 feet and that it could be as high as $175,000. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Hughes asked about alternatives. Mr. McHattie said some other method could be approved by the County next year or next month. They just wanted the flexibility. Dr. Brown asked if staff was aware of any change in City Council policy on alternative means of sewage. Director Hightower said there has been no discussion except the possibility of putting in a sewer line. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it would be a mistake to treat this lot on an indivi- dual basis and require that the condition be met by other lots in the area. He said if there was an alternative method perhaps all of the lots through the homeowners association or something should come through the City with a request. He said they also do not know of any viable alternatives at this time. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried, with Mr. McTaggart abstaining, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 79-21, approv- ing Tentative Parcel Map No. 8947 sub]ect to the conditions listed in Ex- hibit "A". Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen days. 11/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- s SIGN PERMIT NO. 53Y as the applicant was not yet present. • Ms. Lavitt requested that this item be postponed and heard as the last item on the agenda under New Business, On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, agenda item VI. C. was postponed until after item VI. F. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 8 Director Hightower reviewed the staff Open Space Hazard Zoning Districts report and said this amendment con- cerned restrictions to building in the Open Space Hazard District. She said the proposed amendment was the result of study by the Landslide Sub- committee and Council. She said the amendment relates to the use or res- toration of single family buildings and structures within areas currently experiencing downslope movement. She said a public hearing was required and that the item had been legally noticed. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the draft resolution recommending to the City Council the amendment of Section 9412,F. of the Code. Mr. Hughes asked how it would be determined if 91 percent of the structure was destroyed. Director Hightower said this was not entirely clear, but it would not be based on the valuation as it is with nonconforming structures. She said the intent of the section is if a structure is destroyed by landslide, not fire, that there must be something left of the structure in order to restore it. The public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question of Mr. Hinchliffe, Director Hightower explained that if there was a landslide, the intent was to prevent someone from walking away from the destroyed structure and then coming back years later to try to replace or restore it. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if staff was comfortable with the wording re 90 per- cent of the structure. Director Hightower said it would be very difficult to enforce, but did not have any alternative wording to suggest. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested passing this along to the City Council with the suggestion that no. 6 be reworded to clarify the intent. Dr. Brown suggested that the City Council not only clarify the intent but consider justifying the difference between destruction by landslide and fire. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 79-22, recommending Code Amendment No. 8 to the City Council and di- rected staff to transmit a letter to the Council recommending revision of no. 6, as discussed above. Mr. Hughes said someone would have to make the determination of 90 percent and suggested that the amendment state this would be determined by the Director of Planning. He suggested this also be put in the letter. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: Bacharach 11/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- APPEAL OF STAFF INTERPRETATION Director Hightower said the request OF PERMITTED USE was that a savings and loan office be found to be a permitted use in the Commercial Limited (CL) District. She said the purpose of the Commercial Limited District was to permit the uses which serve the immediate residents with those goods and services which prove essential to day-to-day living needs such as food markets, pharmacies, barber or beauty shops, etc. She said it does not allow for financial institutions. Although there are minor -office uses, such as real estate offices in Miraleste Plaza, they were existing at incorpora- tion. Staff could not find that a savings and loan office met the purpose or uses permitted in the Commercial Limited District. Staff recommended that the Commission determine whether a savings and loan office is a per- mitted use in the Commercial Limited District. Mr. Hinchliffe said there are smaller savings and loan offices now and felt a small one could be considered for neighborhood use, depending on what was intended. Dr. Brown said the intent of the General Plan relates to traffic problems, how much traffic, parking, and tivity;would be taking place. Director Hightower said the other part was to have a limitation of uses within small centers. She said this district and the Commercial Neighbor- hood (CN) District were limited to retail uses. She said the intent was to not have these shopping centers used up by offices. Mr. Hughes wondered if it would be a balanced operation and wondered what their motivation was. He said in some respects he found it very difficult to justify. Mr. Hinchliffe wondered if there was a reasonable way to restrict the size of the office. Director Hightower said that could be done if the Commission stated that the use could be found permissable if the offices did not exceed a specific number of square feet. Don Pierson, 2818 Colt Road, said the property contains seven small stores, and that the proposed savings and loan office would be replacing three of them, two of which are real estate offices. He said they want a neighbor- hood branch, that the square footage for the savings and loan office would be 2000 square feet plus the use of the basement for safe deposit boxes. Director Hightower said the only other Commercial Limited District was Hughes Market, and that the only Commercial Neighborhood District was Golden Cove. She said she did not know about using the basement and would have to check that out. Mr. Pierson said they proposed to put in a stairwell, that the basement had previously been used for storage of groceries when a grocery story was lo- cated there. He said use of the basement would give them a total area of 4000 square feet. Mr. Hughes did not feel a savings and loan office fit the criteria for day- to-day living. He was concerned about what impacts there would be on other businesses, the increase in police protection, etc. Mr. McTaggart felt a facility that provided safe deposit boxes met a neigh- borhood convenience need. Mr. Hinchliffe asked what the services would be and was concerned about what the impacts might be. He said every savings and loan office has dif- ferent criteria. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the item was tabled for the applicant to submit more information and for staff to obtain information re police services, etc. 11/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 41 EXTENSION Mr. Weber said the applicant has sub- Crestridge Road mitted a letter (attached to the staff Applicant/Landowner: Episcopal Home report) requesting approval of an ex- tension for Conditional Use Permit No. 41 due to some problems they have had. He said the approval is due to expire on December 26, 1979. Staff recom- mended that the Commission grant a six-month extension, revising the ex- piration date to June 26, 1980. John Arand, 5731 Mistridge, asked the nature of the problems. Director Hightower said the major reason for the delay was the law suit. Mr. Weber said the original plans had been sent back for revision, and the revised plans have been submitted to the City and are under review right now. Mr. Arand said the suit was filed March 16 of this year and the hearing was scheduled towards the end of March. He said the Episcopal Home re- quested an extension to the end of May. He said the court proceedings took approximately two months. Mr. Hughes felt the request was neither unwarranted nor unusual. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission granted a six-month extension to Conditional Use Permit No. 41, to June 26, 1980. SIGN PERMIT NO. 53Y Ms. Lavitt said the applicant was re - 31244 Palos Verdes Drive South questing reconsideration of the sign - Applicant: Phil Napolitan age at the Film IN' Foto booth located in the Golden Cove Shopping Center. She said the Commission at its meeting of February 27, 1979 considered the entire sign program for the shopping center, and the Commission's decision on this site was that the signing on the center interior and on either the north or south face of the building be eliminated. She said this decision was appealed to the City Council and the minutes reflect that since the applicant had not been notified to appear at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the item and since the Commission had not seen the revised plans proposed by the applicant, the matter was referred back to the Commission. She said the new plans are altered only so far as the square footage of sign copy. She said the exist- ing sign has 72 square feet and the alternate plan has a total copy of 34 square feet. She said the Code allows for the placement of one sign per frontage which would allow for two signs to be placed on the kiosk. She said the applicant was asking to maintain copy on all four sides. Staff recommended denial of Sign Permit No. 53Y and that the applicant be re- quired to remove the two panels to conform to the Code. Phil Napolitan, 905 Via Coronel, Palos Verdes Estates, said he proposed to reduce the signage from 72 to 34 square feet. He said the structure was not like a regular store front. He said the marquee around the structure was part of the building, and he was proposing to reduce the sign area to one foot around the whole building. He showed photographs to the Commission of examples of Film IN' Foto in other cities. Mr. McTaggart said he was not bothered by the signage and did not feel anyone else could have a building like this. Mr. Hughes felt there was something else that the applicant could do, per- haps decorative wooden trim on two sides. He felt there were probably a lot that could be done. Mr. McTaggart felt this was a very unique type of building. He found it really difficult to treat it like a normal building. 11/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- • On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried, with Mr. McTaggart dissenting, Sign Permit No. 53Y was denied. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen days. ADJOURNMENT 11/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 9:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, December 11, 1979 at 7:30 p.m.