Loading...
PC MINS 19800108(z) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 8, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: Hughes Also present was Gary Weber, Associate Planner. PERMITTED USE IN COMMERCIAL Mr. Weber said this item was tabled LIMITED ZONE from the November 27 meeting so that Miraleste Plaza more information could be obtained on Applicant: Don Pierson (Highland the proposed use. He referred to Savings and Loan) letters and background information sub- mitted by the applicant and attached to the staff report, which indicated the facilities and uses proposed and that 2000 square feet of ground floor area was acceptable. Staff recommended that the Commission grant the appeal and find that a savings and loan, as a limited office use, is permitted in the Commercial Limited District, on the condition that it not exceed 2000 square feet of ground floor area. Dr. Brown said one of the issues discussed at the last meeting was the ef- fect this use may have on police services, etc. He asked if this had been investigated. Mr. Weber said to his knowledge it had not been investigated. Dr. Brown asked the average square footage of a savings and loan.. Mr. Hinchliffe said it varied, that in the old days it was a substantial amount, but now 2000 square feet or less was not unheard of. Dr. Brown said he understood that this would be a small branch, but that in reading the information provided it looked like a full service facility. He said in addition to the ground floor area there would be basement space of at least 1000 square feet. He asked the difference between a full service savings and loan and this proposal. Mr. Hinchliffe said he did not know that there was any difference in the services provided, but that the approach of the savings and loan companies was to put them in as many areas as possible. Dr. Brown asked what swayed staff's recommendation, as this was previously recommended for denial. Mr. Weber said this project was being handled by the Director of Planning, but he felt the change was probably due to the testimony from the previous meeting and the comments of the Commission. Mr. McTaggart said he never understood the objection to the project in the first place. He said everyone seems very concerned with the number of square feet involved. He asked if they wanted limited services or to Provide full service for the residents of the area. Dr. Brown said the problem was determining Limited Commercial uses. He said in that definition they were thinking it should be smaller. h Mrs. Bacharach asked if they were deciding to re -interpret the Code or only talking about this Miraleste project. Mr. Weber said this would be an interpretation of the Code and would apply to any Commercial Limited area. Dr. Brown said if they were setting a guideline, he felt traffic, etc., were major considerations. Don Pierson, 2822 Colt Road, said the density was already there, that nothing new could be built there. Andrew Joncich, 1094 7th Street, San Pedro, architect, said they would be providing full service, but that the amount of staff would limit the amount of traffic. He said the plan was to use 2000 square feet of ground floor and the basement under it. He said they would have to build a stairway which would take up at least 150 square feet of the ground floor space. Dr. Brown said there was an extremely small savings and loan at Hughes Market, which was also in a Commercial Limited zone. Mrs. Bacharach asked who prepared the report on primary market area. Mr. Joncich said the report was from Highland Savings and Loan. Mrs. Bacharach asked if Highland Savings and Loan had several other branches. Mr. Pierson said they had one main office and two branches, that this would be the third branch. Mrs. Bacharach said she had missed the previous meeting but read the minutes. She felt a small branch would fit and did not feel it was an inappropriate use. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission granted the appeal and found a savings and loan, as a limited office use, to be an appropriate use in the Commercial Limited District, on the condition that it not exceed 2000 square feet of ground floor area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 27 REVISION Mr. Weber said the applicant was re - Palos Verdes Drive South & Clipper questing revisions which were limited Road (Tract 32977) to architectural changes, lot coverage, Applicant: Design Synthesis and minor _grading modifications. He Landowner: Kenneth Wong reviewed the background of the project, submitted as a Residential Planned Development and said the conditional use permit was approved by the Commission on September 27, 1977 and the tentative tract map was approved by the City Council on October 18, 1977. He said the final tract map has not yet been approved. Staff reviewed the proposed re- visions and felt that while the project character would be modified, the changes were not significant enough to warrant a formal public hearing. He said the West Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association had been notified of the meeting and the architect had submitted plans to their Architectural Committee for review. He said the approved conditional use permit and map permit the construction of four single family homes on lots ranging in size from 4704 to 8022 square feet. He said the small lot size was developed primarily in order to maintain a large common open space/recreation area, to preserve the watercourse on the northeastern perimeter, and to allow for the most direct access to Clipper Road from all homes. He reviewed the pro- posed revisions which include an increase in lot coverage and overall floor area, architectural character, reduced setbacks, and minor grading altera- tions. Staff's evaluation of the proposed revisions revealed two major 1/8/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- considerations: architectural character and building setbacks. He said the changes to grading and building height were considered minor. He re- ferred to the comparison chart in the staff report and said the revised front setback for unit 4 should read 20 feet. He said staff would permit the revised grading and landscape plan to be submitted following recordation of the final map. He said a letter was received from the Homeowners Asso- ciation approving the revised plans. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the proposed revisions, subject to the submittal of a revised grading plan and a revised landscape plan. Mr. McTaggart asked about the proposed 16 -foot front setback for unit 3. Mr. Weber said the configuration of the street and the orientation of the structure indicates only a small portion would be a 16 -foot setback. Mr. McTaggart said if sidewalks were installed the cars in the driveway would be parked over the sidewalk. He asked about the drainage problem. Mr. Weber said the drainage problem had been solved with the grading. Re the setbacks he said part of the basis for approval was the fact that it is a Residential Planned Development and there is that flexibility. Mr. McTaggart said this Residential Planned Development will be located within another development that does conform to the Code. Dr. Brown said he was not a member of the Commission at the time of the original hearing. He asked why the structures were allowed to be above 16 feet in height. Mr. Weber said it was determined that there would be no view obstruction. In response to questions by Dr. Brown, Mr. Weber said there would be no reduction to the common open space and that the previous setbacks were as follows: distance between units 1 and 2 = 20 feet, distance between units 2 and 3 = 20 feet, distance between units 3 and 4 = 15 feet. He said the side setback of unit 4 was and is proposed to be 5 feet from the property line. Larry Davis, 2802 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, agreed with the staff conditions. He said the reason they requested to submit the grading and landscaping plan after recordation of the map was because they cannot have a time extension and do not want the time limit to expire on the map. He said the setback for unit 3 runs at an angle. He said the second floor deck as measured parallel runs into the encroachment area. He said minimum dis- tance from the garage was 19 feet 6 inches and then increases. He referred to the plans showing the approved structures and the proposed revised struc- tures. He said they wanted to upgrade the structures while working within the confines of the tract map. He said they could not market the homes at the previously approved square footage. He said the project was put up for sale and the owner could not get a buyer for the price. Kenneth Wong, 28108 South Ridgefern Court, landowner, said the expenses were very high. He said he put the property up for sale, trying to recover the money spent on the project, but that the price was not being met. He said he decided then to increase the area of the homes. He said the big problem was the very high overhead expenses and pointed out this project has been going on since 1976. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it was the owner's decision to incur those costs and did not feel it was an argument for asking the City to bail him out. Mr. McTaggart said there seemed to be a lot of glass in the structures and he questioned whether they would be energy efficient. 1/8/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. Davis said they complied with the Energy Code and that the structures were designed with energy efficiency in mind. Mr. McTaggart said this pr03ect was initially approved with the understanding that the development would not be out of character with the neighborhood. He felt the setbacks would affect its character. He said he had no problem with the 19 -foot 6 -inch front setback for unit 3, but was very concerned about the small side setbacks. He did not feel it was necessary to crowd four large structures on these lots. He did not feel there was valid justi- fication. He said his main objection was with the side yard setbacks. He said he did not object to modifying the plan if they maintained the sideyards. He said there was no feeling of openness in looking at this development. Dr. Brown concurred and said the structures were too close together. He felt it would look like a solid wall and was not in keeping with the neighborhood character. He said the -City cannot be concerned about the financial problems that the applicant undergoes. He did not feel that was a basis on which to approve these revisions. He said he was concerned mainly with the sideyard setbacks and compatibility. Mrs. Bacharach felt the proposal was completely out of character with the neighborhood and would give a condominium effect. She said the Commission had been concerned with achieving a single family look about the project. She felt the side setbacks should remain the same or comparable to those previously approved. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the architecture was unique and not necessarily incom- patible. He felt the concern about the sideyard setbacks was legitimate. It was the consensus of the Commission that the sideyard setbacks and the mass of structures were problems. Mrs. Bacharach asked the deadline for recordation of the map. Mr. Davis said April 18. Mr. Weber said the map would not be recorded with the footprints. Mr. Davis asked for clarification of the feeling of the Commission. Mr. Hinchliffe explained that the Commission was suggesting that they reduce the mass and restore the setbacks. Mr. Weber asked if the applicant restored the setbacks to what was originally approved would the Commission have any problem with an administrative decision. The Commission preferred to see the revisions. Mr. Davis asked if it was alright to go to zero lot line with unit 1 since there was a 15 -foot common area between that lot line and the public right- of-way. It was the consensus of the Commission that they were agreeable to that. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, this item was continued to the next meeting. Mr. Hinchliffe explained that if before the agendas were sent out for the next meeting the applicant had not informed staff that they wish to revise the plans, the Commission would take a vote on this project at the next meeting. Mrs. Bacharach asked when the Homeowners Association was notified. 1/8/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. Weber said by normal City notification procedure, an agenda and a staff report were sent by the City on Friday preceeding this meeting. He said they had previously been sent the plans by the architect. He said the City received the letter of approval from the Architectural Committee on January 5, 1980. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said Director Hightower asked him to inform the Commission that the Planning Commissioners' Conference would be held in San Diego starting Wednesday, the 27th of February. He said the Commission would be receiving something on it soon. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the Coastal Commission hearing on the City's Local Coastal Program. Mr. Weber said it would be held either the 22nd or 23rd of January. He said the City should receive the final date and the staff report on Friday. He said Director Hightower and the City Attorney met with the Coastal Commis- sion staff last Friday and there was a clear understanding of the issues. Mr. Hinchliffe said the Attorney General was reviewing the Coastal Commis- sion's edict with regard to housing. Mr. Hinchliffe discussed the decision by the State Supreme Court whereby a city could condemn a person's property by downzoning and there is no relief, Agirs vs. Tiberon. He said the United States Supreme Court was to rehear it. Mrs. Bacharach asked the status of the Holtzman case and wondered if it was deemed structurally sound when the work was stopped. Mr. Weber said he did not know if it was considered to be structurally sound. He said Mr. Holtzman has been doing some new work for which the County has no permits. He said he thinks he may be boring holes for land- scaping and said the City was watching closely. He said the City Attorney has the file and was reminded of it last Tuesday. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the Eastview annexation and if there was enough staff to handle the additional work if the area becomes part of the City. Mr. Weber said the City would require one more assistant planner. He said there would probably be the same kind of process as with the original General Plan. ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, January 22, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. 1/8/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-