Loading...
PC MINS 1979121111,2_111-eO �01) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting December 11, 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:37 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 Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried, with Mrs. Bacharach abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of November 27, 1979 were approved with the following amendment: page 4, paragraph 3, line 2, should read "...parking, and the activity that would be..." CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 53 Mr. Weber said this item had been con - 5975 Armaga Spring Road tinued to allow the applicant to in- Applicant/Landowner: Mt. Olive vestigate alternative plans and to Lutheran Church allow the Commission and staff to re- view similar lighting. He said re- vised plans have been submitted and the changes included a reduction in pole height from 22 feet to 16 feet and a revision in bulb type from 400 watt metal halide to 400 watt white mercury vapor. He said 5 -inch metal shades were to be installed on the fixtures and that the applicant states the revisions will reduce the intensity of light at the parking lot level one-third over the previous design. He briefly described staff's visit to the Palos Verdes Estates Country Club tennis courts for a comparison and said he understood a number of Commissioners also visited the site. He said the effect of those lights was considered far more severe than those proposed for the Mt. Olive project, since the proposed parking lot lights would be 400 watts instead of 1000, there would be substantially fewer lights, and the type bulb would create a less intense light. While the revised plans substantially reduce the potential impact, staff was still concerned about the height of the fixtures and felt that the lights, at a height of 16 feet, would still allow direct viewing of an in- tense light source even though it may be reflected from shielding. Based on this potential impact, staff continued to recommend that the project be approved only with a reduced pole height, per the draft resolution attached to the staff report for the Commission's consideration. John Schuricht, South Bay Engineering, 304 Tejon Place, Palos Verdes Estates, said it appeared the only point of disagreement was with the height of the fixtures. He said he was reluctant to lower the fixtures more because it would cause hot spots. He said if they lowered the poles they would have to use a smaller (250) watt bulb which would not light the parking lot suffi- ciently. He said they would be installing ineffective lighting which would not achieve their purpose. He said they have eliminated the viewing prob- blem from adjacent properties with shielding. He said his main concern was to obtain an even distribution of lighting over the parking lot. He said if required he would be willing to lower the fixtures to perhaps 14 feet but that 10 feet, as recommended by staff, was much too low. He said the shielding proposed would be larger than those on the tennis court lights. Mr. Weber proposed adding to condition no. 4 of Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution that said inspection shall be to determine if any direct off- site illumination exists and that if found to be necessary, more shielding will be required. ---- ------- C Mrs. Bacharach suggested the wording She felt that way if there were any they be corrected also. 4 "Said inspection shall include....." other problems the City could require Mr. Weber said his main concern was with direct off-site illumination. Mr. Hughes said he made a concerted effort to look at examples cited by the applicant and also looked at other church facilities. In his opinion the proposed lights with proper shielding could work quite effectively. He felt the proposal met the criteria. Re the condition requiring a time schedule he wondered if the schedule could be revised at the discretion of the City. Director Hightower said staff would have that control. Mr. Hughes felt the Commission should make the inspection when the lights were installed. He felt it would give the Commissioners a feeling for whether what they are approving is what they expect it to be. Mr. McTaggart said he also visited similar lighting sites and shared Mr. Hughes' concern about the inspection. He recalled a previous case where the lights turned out to be much bigger and brighter than the Commission had envisioned. He said he had no concerns with the proposal at this time. Mrs. Bacharach felt the applicant had been very responsive to the Commission's concerns. She felt 16 -foot fixtures with shielding would be adequate for the area. She was not sure the inspection should be made by the Commission. She felt those who wished to inspect with the staff could do so, but she did not feel it was necessary to condition the approval with all of the Commission being there to inspect the site. Dr. Brown agreed basically with the other Commissioners. He said, however, since the applicant did indicate that he would be willing to lower the poles to 14 feet if necessary, he would prefer the lower lighting. Re con- dition no. 2 he felt the wording should specify that the lighting plan was to be exactly as shown in the diagram before the Commission this evening. He felt it would be fine for the Commission to be involved in the inspection on an educational basis, but did not feel the Commissioners should be the inspectors. Mr. Hughes felt the words "Planning Commission" should be inserted in con- dition no. 4 instead of "Director of Planning." He said the Commission was making the judgements overruling the staff recommendation and was making the findings. He, therefore, did not feel it was necessarily the position of the Director to make the inspection. Director Hightower said no matter who makes the determination, there should be criteria. Mrs. Bacharach did not feel the Planning Commission should begin inspecting everything approved which opposes the staff recommendation. Mr. Hughes felt it was important that the Commission be more closely asso- ciated with the end results of projects it approves. Mr. Hinchliffe re -opened the public hearing. John Schuricht said the plan proposed and before the Commission tonight would be the plan used. He said he would make sure that the skirts and everything complies with this plan. He said he would rather not lower the poles unless absolutely necessary and pointed out that the first viewing elevation off-site was 8 to 10 feet above the church property. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown said he did not see a problem with a combined inspection with the Planning Commission and Director of Planning. 12/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the Director of Planning notify the Commission when the inspection would take place and two members of the Commission could go along on the inspection. Mrs. Bacharach felt the professional staff knew more about this than the Commission. She felt the Commissioners could go for their own education but did not think the Commissioners should be the ones to make the final inspec- tion. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Reso- lution No. 79-23, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 53, with the addi- tional hearing date inserted in the second paragraph of the resolution, and subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", amended as follows: Condition No. 1 - Change to "...no greater than 16 feet..." Condition No. 2 - Change to "...applicant shall comply with a lighting plan ..... each fixture, as pre- sented to the Planning Commission on De- cember, 11, 1979." Condition No. 4 - Add at end "Said inspection shall include a determination as to whether any direct or off-site illumination exists. If said condition does exist a condition for addi- tional �shielding shall be required." Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, Hinchliffe NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. SIGN PERMIT NO. 85 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for an 6118 Palos Verdes Drive South existing illegal identification sign Applicant: Abalone Cove Garden which has been located in the Planter Supply box at the front of the parking area at the subject site. She said there was additional identification on the building which was approved September 6, 1977 under Sign Permit No. 20. She said the subject sign was installed in October of this year without approval and includes extraneous copy. She said the sign was 6 feet high with 20 square feet of fact and the applicant stated it was necessary due to low visibility. She said the Code allows for one major identification sign per frontage and there are now two at this site. Staff recommended denial of the permit. In response to a Commission question, Director Hightower said a two -face sign would be permitted. John Hoyt, 2713 Corvales Drive, Torrance, applicant, said he had a hardship as the parking lot slopes down and the street is extra wide in that location. He said eastbound traffic heading towards San Pedro goes past without seeing the shop. He felt the sign would help his business. He said although most of his current business was from local residents, he needed more business, and he felt the sign would make a lot more people aware of the shop. 1 Mrs. Bacharach asked about using aAperpendicular Mr. Hoyt said he wanted to be low key. He said he knew he needed a permit but explained that the sign was a gift to him and had been built by his parents and installed by his brother as a surprise. 12/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Dr. Brown felt there was a visibility problem there but said he would prefer a perpendicular sign rather than the existing situation. Mrs. Bacharach said she drove by very slowly in both directions. She said she did not see anything going east, and coming the other direction saw both signs at exactly the same time. She did not feel the sign served its pur- pose and said she would encourage the applicant to get a perpendicular sign. Mr. McTaggart agreed with Mrs. Bacharach about being able to see both signs coming westbound, but disagreed that eastbound traffic could not see the subject sign. Mr. Hughes agreed with Mrs. Bacharach and felt the sign was facing the wrong direction, that it was 90 degrees from where it should be. He said he recog- nized it was an unusual situation there because of the location of the store which makes identification very difficult. He suggested that the applicant turn the subject sign, remove the other existing sign from the store .front, and apply for proper permits. Mr. McTaggart suggested that this item be tabled to allow the applicant to look into other alternatives such as that suggested by Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hoyt said he would give some thought to possibly turning the sign around. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested tabling the item to the next meeting and if the applicant has not come back with a solution, that the Commission act on the request at that time. He explained to the applicant that the Commission has suggested he remove the sign from the planter box and turn it around or something, and remove the other existing sign. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the request was tabled to the next meeting which would be four weeks from tonight. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36345 Mr. Weber explained the request was for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 49 the subdivision of a .87 acre parcel Island View Drive (Lots 4 - 6, into a 10 -unit residential condominium Tract 27090) development consisting of attached Landowner: Island View Inv. Co. multi -family dwelling units, common Applicant: Hanson Ho open space, recreation facilities, private access, and installation of required infrastructure improvements. He explained the background of the project which was first heard by the Planning Commission on March 27, 1979, subsequently withdrawn, and resub- mitted on October 5, 1979, at which time staff re-evaluated the potential environmental impacts. He said a final Negative Declaration was granted on December 4, 1979 and he reviewed the procedural requirements. He reviewed the project description and said the revised plan was very similar to the original plan in that the structures are fairly evenly dispersed over the site in small clusters. However, he said the vehicular access and internal circulation had been substantially revised, and posed fewer problems than the original plan. He said an evaluation of the revised plan indicates fundamental compliance with the General Plan. He said a detailed review of the design concept with respect to the development standards in the Develop- ment Code shows no major areas of conflict, but that there were minor issues requiring revision or verification such as the setback on unit #1, attached unit noise/vibration standards, and handicap standards. He referred to the chart in the staff report comparing the revised project to applicable Code requirements and the original submittal. Based on the site design, staff felt this was a workable plan. He said the redesign of the project was directed almost totally at resolving the circulation problems identified in the March 27 staff report. He said the minimum 20 -foot driveway was accep- table to both the Fire Department and Planning staff, but the Public Works Director suggested a 24 -foot minimum and the County Engineer suggested a 30 -foot width. He said the "motorcourts" have been eliminated from this 12/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- plan and were previously considered a major concern. He said the design may result in some conflicts between vehicular maneuvering and parked cars; however, staff felt parking restrictions spelled out in the CC&Rs would eliminate all problems other than those associated with inconsiderate motorists. He said based on preliminary information it was estimated that grading would be necessary over most, if not all, of the site. He said a formal staff recommendation on the grading would be forthcoming after a grading plan is reviewed, but that no major problems were anticipated. He said the revised plans had not been analyzed in great detail with respect to view impact, but that a preliminary review indicates that the proposed structures would be less impactive than those originally proposed. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing and discuss major issues and arrive at a consensus on the design concept. If the Commission is able to reach a consensus, staff would then require that the applicant submit the tentative map, grading plan, and other required revisions. Staff felt the revised plans had been substantially improved and that the project would function adequately. Mr. Hughes asked if turf -block would stand constant use. Mr. Weber felt there could be some problems, that it could end up being a burden on the homeowners if it is not maintained. He said the idea behind using turf -block was to eliminate some of the blacktop. Mr. Hughes asked if the rear units were designed to get a view over the units in front. Dr. Brown asked about subterranean parking. Mr. Weber said it had been discussed and was determined by the applicant to not be practical. Mr. Hinchliffe explained procedures and opened the public hearing. Hanson Ho. 134312 Pumice Street, Norwalk, said they were proposing to start with a lower grade in order to reduce the height of the building along Island View. He said they were also trying to minimize cutting into the soil. He said the structures would be stucco and wood siding with a tile roof and flat roof combination. In response to a question of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Ho said they had tried to keep as close to the natural grade as possible. He said they needed an accep- table driveway slope and that the house slopes down. He presented an architectural drawing showing how the structure would look from the drive entrance. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mrs. Bacharach agreed it was a better plan than the last one but was con- cerned about what the obstruction to views might be and the grading. She felt it was a more workable drawing but was also concerned about the noise impact from the swimming pool and felt that might be a problem. Dr. Brown felt this plan was an improvement but still felt it was tight. He was concerned about the view and the circulation. He questioned the durability of turf -block and felt perhaps agate or something more durable should be used instead. He agreed there would be a noise problem but felt the swimming pool was a nice amenity. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about view obstruction and said one alternative would be to reduce the number of units. He said this was so intensely developed it was not possible to put ten individual units on the property and not have a lot of blacktop and concrete. He felt this was a case which met the Code but was too dense. 12/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mr. Hughes was concerned that the priorities were to retain or create views for the new units rather than developing a technique for retaining existing views. He said he would like a view analysis showing the ridgelines of the front six units to establish baselines and then a second line showing what additional view obstruction the other units would create. He was concerned that in order to increase the square footage of units 3 thru 6, the applicant has gone up instead of out. He suggested decreasing the density and lowering the height of the units. He said he would like to see alternatives on reduc- ing the height and grading. He felt there was still a lot of concrete. He said it was a step in the right direction but he felt more could be done about view protection. Mr. Hinchliffe said if the zoning permits twelve units per acre then that is what the applicant is entitled to. Mr. McTaggart agreed that the zoning allows so many units, but pointed out that nothing in the Code guarantees all of the units a view. Mrs. Bacharach said the Commission was being asked tonight only whether or not the configuration was acceptable. She said the view analysis and grading would be looked at later. She said right now they were to conceptually ap- prove the site layout only. Dr. Brown asked if the Commission's concerns could be mitigated with this kind of design. Mr. Weber said he did not feel there would be a view problem. He said an obvious alternative would be to have one structure on the site which would be allowed by the -Code. He said that would remove the openness he inter- preted the Commission wanted at the last meeting. He said in order to ask the applicant to reduce the number of units, the Commission would have to come up with substantial justification. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed and said the Commission had no justification for deny- ing the applicant ten units. Dr. Brown proposed a motion to approve the site design concept as presented tonight. Mr. Weber said he would prefer that the Commission informally reach a con- sensus. Mr. Hinchliffe summarized that a major concern was with view protection and that the applicant should take care with the ridgelines. He said the appli- cant's efforts to open the project were commendable. He said there was a question about the use of a subterranean garage or semi -subterranean in an effort to lower the profile. He said the Commission was concerned about the use of turf -block. Mr. Ho said it was the developer's opinion that a lot of people like to pur- chase units next to the pool and were not bothered by the noise. He said use of the pool would follow the Homeowners Association rules. Re viewing he felt they could not cut much lower. He said the height along Hawthorne Boulevard was not 30 feet, that the overall building height would be 30 feet. He said the retaining wall can only be a certain height. Re the turf -block they felt it would decrease the overall paving area. There was consensus among the Commissioners on the site plan design presented this evening. Mr. Weber said he would have no problem with an increase in grading within certain limits. Re the wall, he said the Code lists criteria. He said if something does not comply with the criteria but makes a better project it should be considered. 12/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- RECESS At 10:28 p.m.' a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:36 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35040 Mr. Weber reviewed the background of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 51 this request which was first heard by Palos Verdes Drive South @ Seawolf the Commission on June 12, 1979, subse- Landowner: Calwah Dev., Inc. quently withdrawn, and resubmitted on Applicant: Young & Associates September 14, 1979. He said staff re- evaluated the potential environmental impacts, prepared an addendum to the initial study and issued a final Negative Declaration. He reviewed the re- quest for the construction of 60 dwelling units in clusters of two and three units each on a 15.19 acre site. He said available information shows a maximum building height of 24 feet. He said the common recreational area was proposed for the northeast corner of Seawolf and Beachview Drives and includes two tennis courts (no lights), pool, jacuzzi, and recreation build- ing. He said the development would be served by new public roads taking access from Seawolf and Coastsite Drives. He said an evaluation of the re- vised plan indicates overall compliance with the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. He said there were no major areas of conflict with respect to the Development Code standards although there were some minor issues that would require verification. He referred to the chart in the staff report comparing the revised project to the Code requirements and the original submittal. He said the design proposed was very similar to the original submittal, that the major differences involved the revision of the circula- tion system and the addition of a half acre lot to the project. He said the design concept remained a relatively standard approach for a site with no overriding physical design constraints. Staff felt the attached single family concept proposed in the plan provided the necessary balance on a site zoned for single family residential yet located in close proximity to rather high density residential complexes. One aspect of the plan that staff was not totally comfortable with involved the configuration of the lot lines and he reviewed the staff comments listed in the staff report. Staff recommended that the applicant consider redesign of the lot lines to include only that area necessary to include the primary structure and ade- quate private outdoor living area. Another minor area of concern involved the orientation of certain structures to the road from which they were served which could result in vehicular conflicts. He said the revised plans show 36 -foot wide public streets throughout the development and, in general, staff felt the modifications to the circulation system effectively met the concerns identified previously. He said the revised plan calls for less grading than originally proposed. He said a detailed view analysis had not yet been prepared but based on preliminary information no major public view obstruction was anticipated. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, discuss major issues, and arrive at a consensus on the design concept, after which staff would require that the applicant submit a tentative map, grading plan, and other required provisions. In summary staff felt the revised plans had been substantially improved and given the design criteria, site characteristics, and Code requirements, the project would function adequately. Public hearing was opened. Roy Young, Young & Associates, referred to some additional study material which was set up on display. He said there was a lot of open area and they felt it would be nice to have garden spots to be finished and established as part of the units. He said they will have to supply trails for access. He said some homes were closer to the street and in some places they had the opportunity to have larger lots. He discussed the entranceway atriums. Mr. McTaggart asked if the reason for the amount of parking near the recrea- tion area was to sell memberships in the future. 12/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- 0 • Mr. Young said they had not addressed that issue, that large family get- togethers or weddings at the -clubhouse would generate the need for addi- tional parking. Mr. Hughes said there was no way to get from the garage to the back yard without going through someone else's private area. He wondered if it was very practical to expect people to go around the block to get to their back yards. Mr. Young agreed that perhaps there should be side yards or something. He showed some floor plans to the Commission. Winslow Randall, 32614 Coastsite, was concerned about the access from Coast - site and felt there may be a traffic jam at that point. He asked about fences or walls along the street and said he hoped there would be some, as he felt they were attractive and provided security. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hughes was concerned about the lot lines and was concerned that back yards in this type development may pose a problem. Re the access, he felt there should not be three major driveways dumping traffic onto a cul-de-sac, but felt this issue would take some analysis before making a determination on the best access location. He felt a lot of thought had been put into how to develop the property and meet the criteria previously expressed. He had no problem with the proposed location for the recreation area, but said he was very interested in seeing the view analysis. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the tennis court having its fence so close to the road and its effect on visibility at that intersection. Mrs. Bacharach agreed with Mr. Hughes about the lot lines. She did not feel the parking was scattered sufficiently throughout the development. She was strongly in favor of having the access from Seahill rather than Coastsite unless there were major problems with that. Dr. Brown agreed with the access from Seahill instead. He felt view would be an important issue and the trails would have to be resolved. He also agreed with Mrs. Bacharach about the parking and was concerned about the intersection visibility problem. Mr. Young said they had not thought about the problems which might occur over the proposed lot lines. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed about the lot lines and lot sizes. He said except for the lot line problem he had no problem with the layout. He was con- cerned, however, with the access. He was not sure how much room there would be for parking with all the curb cuts in the road. The speaker for the Bay Club said they were concerned with the recreation area. He felt if the recreation area was in some central location it would provide better security. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it was an even less desirable location for the units. It was the consensus of the Commission that the following concerns existed: parking, lot lines, driveways, and recreation area. STAFF REPORTS Coastal Plan, that the hearing would January. Director Hightower said there would not be a Coastal Commission hearing on the 19th of December on the City's be held around the 22nd or 23rd of 12/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- Mr. Hughes asked the standards for a carolling bell, referring to St. Peter's by the Sea. Mr. Weber said it was discussed and determined that there was no permit nec- essary. He said the City had no noise ordinance so there was no way to stop or control the noise unless it became a public health problem. Director Hightower said it appeared that the building was designed for that and it may have been approved previously by the County. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if there was an interest in meeting with the City Council. It was the consensus of the Commission that there was an interest if the meeting would be meaningful and productive. ADJOURNMENT At 12:12 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, January 8, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 12/11/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9-