Loading...
PC MINS 19800212M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting February 12, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson and Assistant Planner John Emeterio. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of January 22, 1980, were approved as submitted. VARIANCE NO. 42 Mr. Thompson said the required action on this item was for the Commission to vote on the resolution, which re- flected the Commission action taken at its last meeting. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution No. 80-1, denying Variance No. 42. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None GRADING NO. 400 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio explained that this ap- t Headland Drive peal of the Planning Commission's Appellant: Doo B. Song denial was brought before the City Council on February 5, 1980 at which time it was the consensus of the Coun- cil that the Commission should have the benefit of all data presented to the Council and should see the most recent submittals. He said the item, therefore, was referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration. He said the newly submitted photos and graphics were on display, but that there was really no new information, that the project was still the same. He reviewed the six issues of conflict between the project and the Develop- ment Code, as listed in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Com- mission re -affirm its previous decision and that if the City Council dis- agrees it initiate a Code amendment concerning this issue of recreational facilities. Ted Woolsey, construction manager, 748 East Bonita, Suite 113, Pomona, said they would like to build an undersized tennis court on the back of the property. He said the property sloped back gradually. He showed a panoramic photo and said they would like to construct a varying height re- taining wall from 5 feet to 8 feet and then back down to 5 feet. He said they want to construct a retaining wall on the lower portion from heights of 1 foot to 2 feet and then up to 8 feet, coming two-thirds up to mid - court. He presented an overlay to show what the finished project would look like and said the neighbors would not be able to see the tennis court as it was really down and out of the way. He said they also proposed to backfill on the opposite side of the retaining wall for cosmetics only to make the slope more gradual and then put in landscaping. He said when the court was finished the natural drainage would not be altered, it would not obstruct anyone's view, and it would make the property more useful. Mr. Hughes asked in what way the court was undersized. Mr. Woolsey said a regulation tennis court was 60 by 120 feet and the pro- posed court was 55 by 115 feet. He said the playing area would not be undersized, just the area within the fence. Mr. Hughes said the drawing showed lights and asked if they were proposing tennis court lighting. Mr. Woolsey said tennis court lighting was not being proposed as part of this project. Mr. Hughes felt staff should clearly mark the plans to indicate that tennis court lights were not part of the consideration. Dr. Brown asked if the applicant reviewed the Development Code and wondered how he felt this project conformed. Mr. Woolsey said he had read the Code, but was not an expert on the defini- tions. He said the construction of the tennis court was not a major pro- ject, that it would be low, out of the way, would not be seen, and would make the property useful as the owner is paying property taxes. Dr. Brown asked about maximum created slopes. Mr. Emeterio said the worst case was about a 75 percent slope. He said the original staff report just showed approximations. Mr. McTaggart asked if a tennis court could be built without the use of retaining walls. Mr. Woolsey said yes, but not with staying within the scope of the grading laws. He said the exposed area of the wall would be 4 feet maximum because they were proposing to backfill. Mrs. Bacharach asked the rationale for not allowing backfill. Mr. Emeterio said from the foot of the retaining wall to the top it would still be 8 feet no matter how much dirt was used. Mr. McTaggart said an 8 -foot wall generally takes 12 blocks and that the plan only showed 7 blocks, which appears to minimize the effect of the wall. Doo B. Song, 1 Headland, said it was only an 8 -foot retaining wall and they would fill it up 5 feet so that only 3 feet would show. He said they had letters of approval from the neighbors. He said a 14 -foot retaining wall all around a court was 3ust approved by the City Council. Dr. Brown said although the Commission was aware of the Council's decision on the previous tennis court that was just mentioned, it does not set prece- dence. He said every project was considered for its own merits. Mr. Woolsey submitted the letters of approval from each of the neighbors to the Commission. Mr. Emeterio noted that staff was not aware of letters of support until now. Mrs. Bacharach said she was thoroughly confused. She said the Commission denied the Hansen tennis court because it did not meet the Development Code. She said she was one of the members of the Commission that attended the Council meeting on that appeal, and they were told by the C6uncil that the 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Commission had made the right decision. She said in this case the Commis- sion did exactly the same thing and yet the City Council sent it back. She felt the Council was playing games and felt the Commission had no choice but to vote no. Dr. Brown said the question was the real interpretation of the Development Code. He said the Commission should not be in the position of taking an interpretation of the Code beyond what they have been given to work with. He said nothing had changed with the project and he would vote for denial since the project did not fit the Development Code. Mr. Hughes said he was bothered by the fact that this was back to the Com- mission. He said what has been presented tonight re -enforces all the evi- dence from before. He said unless one could make very creative findings by extraordinary stretching of the facts, one could not make all of the necessary findings and could not even arrive at a decision that would allow grading on this kind of project. He said the Development Code was written specifically to prevent this. He felt the staff recommendation was well- founded. He said if the City Council finds it necessary to approve this project, the Development Code must clearly be in error. He suggested that any decision the Commission makes clearly state to the City Council that fact. Mr. McTaggart said the visual aid presented tonight was very artistic but showed something was in error. He felt staff should make sure all drawings are accurate. He said there were more than 7 blocks in an 8 -foot block wall. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred with the s. taff recommendation. He said he was sympathetic to what Mrs. BacharacMla�nd assured the applicant that the Com- mission was not trying to play games with him. He said the Development Code was in conflict with what the City Council had approved on a previous occasion. He said the Commission had no alternative but to deny the appeal because the application was not consistent with the Development Code. Mrs. Bacharach requested that the Planning Commission recommend any further fees be waived on this application. It was the consensus of the Commission to do so. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission re -affirmed its previous decision and denied the appeal to Grading No. 400. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the 15 -day appeal period and said the Commission was recommending that there be no further fees involved with this appeal. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission directed forwarding to the City Council the suggestion or recommendation that should the City Council find in favor of this parti- cular appeal, that they then direct the Planning Commission to begin the formal procedure of re-evaluating the Development Code and recommending a change to the Development Code that would allow for a development of this kind city-wide. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35040 Mr. Weber said the major issues dis- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 51 cussed at the December 11, 1979 Commis - Palos Verdes Drive South @-Seawolf sion meeting were lot lines, circula- Landowner: Calwah Dev., Inc. tion, parking, and tennis court fenc- Applicant: Young & Associates ing. He said the last site plan pro- posed lot lines that extended well beyond the rear of the structures and that it was the consensus of the Commission that this type of lotX was not in character with the overall design of the development and should be re- designed to avoid future problems. He said the map now showed lot lines consistent with the footprint of the structures. Staff felt a more satis- factory answer would be to establish small rectangular lots that would 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 0- 0 accommodate the structures, entry courts, rear patios, and other features to be used solely by the individual units. He said the primary issue with respect to circulation was the short cul-de-sac located in the easternmost segment of the site and that there was concern that it would add unneces- sary traffic and create conflicts. It was suggested at the last meeting that the applicant review the possibility of intersecting the proposed street on Seahill Drive, but the architect felt that to do so would re- quire significant additional grading. He said staff was in disagreement with that and felt they were already doing an excessive amount of grading in the area anyway. Staff recommended that the driveway intersect with Seahill instead. He said the streets are to be public and that apparently there was a misunderstanding with the engineer. He said the map does not show the required right-of-way. He said the revision would require some redesign to the project. He said the revised plan calls for nine addi- tional parking bays, but that the Public Works Department has not liked the use of parking bays on public streets because they interfere with the street sweeping, etc. Staff felt there was adequate parking and that many more than 62 on -street spaces were available. He said the revised plan shows that the tennis court and swimming pool fences have been set at least fifteen feet away from the street -side property lines and have been modified to provide better visibility. He said the grading plan proposes that the entire site be graded and corrected the staff report, saying the proposed cut appeared to be about 17 feet rather than 12 feet. He said it appeared there would be a need for retaining walls. Staff's review indi- cated that the grading proposed was excessive, and the primary objections were based on excessive terracing, use of 2:1 slopes, and excessive fill. He said a detailed view analysis has not yet been completed. Staff felt revised plans were necessary showing the public right-of-way, re -doing the cul-de-sac or showing why the project cannot take access off of Sea - hill, and a less impactive grading plan. Staff recommended that the Com- mission continue the public hearing, discuss the revisions, and direct the applicant to revise the plans pursuant to staff and Commission concerns. Dr. Brown said the Commission discussed the lot lines, cul-de-sac and right-of-way problems previously. He asked the status of the corner piece of property that was a service station. Mr. Weber said it was under separate ownership, on the market, and zoned RS -4. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the consultant's work on the coastline. Mr. Weber said that was only dealing with subregions 1 and 7. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about low and moderatekr� Mr. Weber said none was proposed but that was something the developer and the City would have to deal with. He said he thought the strategy would be to collect in -lieu fees, so much money per unit, which would go into a fund to allow for the City to purchase property for the development of low and moderate income housing. Mr. Hinchliffe said the public hearing had been continued from the last meeting and was still open. Roy Young, architectural firm of Young & Associates, 118 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, said they felt they had responded to the concerns discussed at the last meeting. He said they went to lot lines which coincided with the outside of the buildings. He said they did not turn the cul-de-sac around because there was all rock in that area. He said other than the cost of grading it out, they would not put the rock back into the site and would, therefore, have to haul it away. He said there was about 1000 yards of rock and they wanted further input from the Commission on this item. Re the setbacks of the structures from the right-of-way, he felt the pur- pose was to have room to keep a car off the street while in the driveway. He said they would like a setback of 20 feet from the curb which would 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- result in a 16 -foot front setback from the property line. He said they had no problem eliminating the parking bays. He said there was an existing pad graded years ago for the gas station and that they wished to replace that into a more natural relationship. He said they do not wish to be penalized by previous development. He said they had completely redrawn the plans to very close scale. He said he had discussed this project with staff approxi- mately six times between meetings. Mr. Hughes said he was surprised that there were still concerns about the lot lines as there was so much discussion about them at the last meeting. He did not understand why the applicant was surprised that the issue was still a concern. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, said there was no problem with the lot lines, that he could put them on the next map, and would also show the streets as public on the next map. He needed to know if the Commission would allow the 20 -foot setback from the curb or if it must be 20 feet from the property line. He said they would remove all parking bays. He said the structures were proposed to be split level to accommodate the grading. He said this was an effort to reach the natural grade. He said there would be retaining walls on the back of the garages, and demonstrated examples on the chalkboard. Re changing the access he said besides the rock the grade would have to be lowered another 10 feet, that there would be a lot of cut involved. He proposed no retaining walls along the tennis court and swim- ming pool. He said Mr. Weber was suggesting something like the Alta Vista tract, which has very little grading. He said the Presley subdivision would be easy to build on because the pads are all there, that people can build their homes with no grading. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was continued. RECESS At 9:02 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. with the same members present. At Mr. Hughes` request, the applicant presented cross sections to the Com- mission, which had been set up during the recess. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the cul-de-sac and said during previous testimony several residents had expressed concern about possible traffic problems. He said it seem impractical to have three driveways for major developments coming from one road. He said it has been the policy of the City to not allow 16 -foot front setbacks, but that he would not be concerned if there were some mechanism to insure no sidewalks in the future. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the City had a negative attitude about hauling away dirt. Mr. Weber said it was not generally a City problem, but would be a problem for the applicant. Mr. Hughes felt this development did not meet the grading ordinance, that it was proposing grading which would terrace rather than require the homes to be built to step with the land. He felt before discussing sidewalks, the Commission should determine whether the fundamental grading was what they wanted. Mr. Hinchliffe said he did not see any significant changes to the plan. Dr. Brown agreed and said it appeared there were only cosmetic changes. He also agreed the Commission should tackle the grading issue first. Mr. Hinchliffe said the Commission should go one step back and determine if this project was an appropriate way to develop 60 units on the land. He 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- • E said the first time the Commission looked at this project they were not excited about the use of the land. He said in these two recent concepts he did not see any significant changes. He said both concepts represent terracing which represents a lot of grading. Mr. Hughes said the land has dirt stored there, was graded and farmed, etc. over the last 50 years. He said perhaps there was no way to keep with the natural grade. He was not sure this question could be answered by the Com- mission or the staff. He said there may be a better approach that would allow for less grading. He said he was unconvinced that this proposal was the best approach. Mr. McTaggart felt there would be downslope retaining walls in some cases or some very steep slopes created. He felt sure there was another approach, but said this approach was consistent with other projects approved by the City. He said he would feel more uncomfortable if the 60 units were going into one-third of the space. Mrs. Bacharach felt the project was designed in the easiest possible manner and was not an imaginative project. Dr. Brown asked if staff would like to see this project developed in the same manner as the Alta Vista tract. Mr. Weber said the Alta Vista project did minimize the grading and fit into the hill much better than the subject project. He said he sees this project as changing the overall character of the coas5al area and for that reason felt it was excessive. He suggested a coupleRalternative conceptual de- signs that attempt to meet the concerns of the Commission with regard to grading and placement of the units on the land. Dr. Brown agreed, saying that basically the Commission has seen the same site design from day one, that the general concept has been precisely the same. Roy Young said the reason they have followed this line of concept was that there had been a lot of work done with the concept before when the Commis- sion first worked with the project. He said this was the first time he had heard that anyone was interested in a different concept. Mrs. Bacharach felt it was important for the applicant to try and get as many views from the homes as possible as long as the structures did not take away from public or other private views. Mr. Young said one thing they could do is group the clusters tighter, creat- ing a larger open space area. He said that would help work out the grading problems. Mr. Leonard said before the City incorporated there was massive terracing taking place and 150 -foot cuts. He said the grading proposed for this project was not massive. He felt it was better to grade the whole site, and said there were rolled slopes in the Presley tract. He said they could put all the units in one structure and do no grading, but felt that was a poor development. He did not feel the concept should be changed. Mrs. Bacharach said she remembered asking for alternative designs,Ae-+e;4cr- time age.. She felt the Commission should consider other designs before reaching a decision. The Commission reached consensus on the following areas of concern: 1) there was no opposition to the duplex -triplex concept; 2) there was concern with terracing; 3) there was no opposition to clustering; 4) there was con- cern with the cul-de-sac on the east side; 5) there was concern that there be adequate off-street parking in the driveway; 6) a detailed view analysis was necessary; 7) there was concern about the lot line configuration; and 8) the applicant was directed to submit alternative designs with the idea of minimizing the grading. 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Re encroachment of the recreation area into the right-of-way, Mr. Leonard said they would move it. Mr. Young said he was unclear about the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hinchliffe said the Commission would like the applicant to explore having the cul-de-sac in the upper corner so they do not have to blast the rocks out. Mrs. Bacharach asked that staff check with the Public Works Department re right-of-way, driveways, etc. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the item was tabled. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 35 Mr. Thompson said the request was for VARIANCE NO. 25 modifications to an approved plan for Intersection of Silver Spur Road the construction of an office building and Silver Spur Frontage Raod and related improvements. While staff Applicant: Matt Brunning was of the opinion that the requested modifications do not require an amend- ment to the approved resolution, the proposed changes were believed to be significant enough to require Commis- sion review. He said basically the applicant was redesigning the building, doubling the net leaseable floor area of the first story and reducing the net leaseable floor area of the second story to almost half. He referred to the drawings on display. He said the reduction in building coverage was largely due to the elimination of the second story office building that covered over a portion of the parking area. He said a rectangular shaped building was now proposed in approximately the same location as the first story of the previous approved building. He said the major change was the retaining wall adjacent to the parking area, and there was also concern with the width of the drive lanes. He said there was a better parking ratio pro- posed now. Staff recommended that the Commission grant a six-month time ex- tension that would expire on August 12, 1980, as requested by the applicant, and approve the modifications as proposed by the applicant sub]ect to the conditions as stated in the staff report. In response to questions by Dr. Brown, Mr. Thompson said in terms of stabil- ity the new design was consistent with the geology report. He said he was comfortable with the wall because by moving it back there was a better feel- ing of space and with certain landscaping treatments the wall could be softened. In response to questions by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Thompson said the grade of the parking area itself would be the same. He said the elevation of the approved parking area would be basically the same as what is proposed now. Matt Brunning, 727 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, said the reason for the time extension was due to the discussions in May with the future tenants of the ground floor, now a savings and loan instead of a real estate office. He said he submitted revised plans to staff and then revised the plans again at staff's request. He said the second floor would be offices. Mr. Hughes asked what they could reasonably expect parking requirements to be for a savings and loan as opposed to a typical office building. Mr. Hinchliffe said people who use savings and loans and banks utilize the spaces quickly, are short-term parkers. He said there would be a large turn -over. Mrs. Bacharach asked about the geology report being consistent with the modifications and wondered if there would be an addendum. Mr. Thompson said the modifications were consistent with the recommendations of the geology report. He said in addition the County would review this when submitted for plan check. 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- 11 • Mr. Brunning said the original geology report indicates there is slippage beyond the property line. He said the work to be done would be the same. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, Conditional Use Permit No. 35 was granted a six-month extension to August 12, 1980. Mr. McTaggart said there was no significant change and since staff was sufficiently unconcerned about the geology, he had no problem. Mr. Hughes said the Commission had previously expressed concern about camou- flaging the air conditioning. Mr. Brunning said they proposed the same screening arrangement. Dr. Brown said he had no problems if staff was not concerned about the geology. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said the 25 -foot drive lane was a standard and did not take compact cars into consideration. Mr. Brunning said he was not opposed to the staff -recommended conditions. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to approve the modifications to Conditional Use Permit No. 35 and Variance No. 25 subject to the following conditions: 1) The drive lane be widened to 25 feet in accordance with the Development Code (Section 9636). 2) Reduce the height of the retaining wall in the front setback to 42 inches in accordance with Section 9623 of the Develop- ment Code. Mr. Hinchliffe said staff should check to make sure that the previous res- trictions placed on this property were carried through. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35799 Mr. Weber said the request was to sub - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 56 divide a 9.5 acre site into a 9 -unit South of Palos Verdes Drive South residential planned development (RPD) at Conqueror Drive which would allow for single family Applicant/Landowner: Petrous dwelling units, common open space, a Industries, Inc. private drive, and installation of re- quired infrastructure improvements. He said a Negative Declaration was granted on June 18, 1979, and proper public notice for this public hearing was published and mailed. He said a decision on the project must be made by September 17, 1980. He reviewed the area and project description, noting that the site was located in Subregion 7 of the coastal region and was zoned RS -1 (RPD). He said no homes were currently proposed; however, the concept would allow for reasonably large single family structures. He said private vehicular access would be taken from a proposed bluff road that was estab- lished in the Coastal Specific Plan. He said an evaluation of the map showed overall compliance with the designated land use, policies, and goals in the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan; however, there were some is- sues in the staff report which were related and require further discussion. He said a detailed review of the map revealed some problems and concerns with respect to the standards established in the Development Code and re- ferred to the chart in the staff report. He said only 24 percent of the 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- site is proposed to be held in common open space. He said the Initial Study identified two areas of potential or known environmental impacts that could have a significant effect on the environment: paleontological resources and public view obstruction. He said to reduce the potential impacts, mitigation measures were assigned to each impact. He said the site has no major adverse physical characteristics and, therefore, the major design constraints were limited to view/visual character, access, compatibility with adjacent area, grading and Code requirements. He said the plan proposes no uses at all for the common open space, but the Coastal Specific Plan requires developments to maintain or re-establish as much agriculture as possible within the common open space. Staff recommended that the applicant be required to incorporate such a use into the plan or provide evidence that it is not feasible. He said as required by the Coastal Specific Plan a bluff road was proposed in the westernmost corner of the property, which will ultimately loop through Subregion 7 providing maximum public access to the bluff -top. From Palos Verdes Drive South a short segment of this bluff road is proposed to lead to the proposed pri- vate drive serving the tract. A staff review of the proposed private drive indicated several problems. Staff recommended that the Commission require that the roads be designated as public rather than private and that the design of the public street provide for a minimum 40 -foot right- of-way, a 28 -foot roadway, and on -street public parking. The drive was proposed to intersect the bluff road about 100 feet south of the inter- section of the bluff road and Palos Verdes Drive South. Staff had no strenuous objections to such close proximity, but felt that situating the intersections farther apart would benefit traffic patterns on a long-range basis; the Public Works Department concurred with the comment. In addition to on -street parking, staff would require that all lots be able to accommo- date at least four cars. He reviewed the grading and said in reality grad- ing would be done over 100 percent of the site. Staff felt the grading was excessive. Staff reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of grading for building pads, as listed in the staff report. A preliminary view analysis, which was on display, showed that if structures no higher than 16 feet were constructed on the proposed building pads, no view obstruction would result to public or private views. Staff was concerned, however, about possible obstruction resulting from future landscaping, and approval of the condi- tional use permit would be conditioned on submittal of a landscape plan and deed restrictions prohibiting landscaping and appurtenances from obstruct- ing or significantly interfering with primary public and private views. Staff would require an accurate topo survey to be submitted prior to ap- proval to guarantee accuracy of the view analysis and other analyses. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, discuss major is- sues, and require redesign of the project pursuant to staff and Commission concerns. Mr. Hughes noted that this project was located in one of the subregions being worked on by the consultant and asked about the time schedule with respect to this project review. Mr. Weber said the City has received a rough draft this week and he felt the study would probably not be done until the end of March. He recom- mended holding off on a final decision on this project until after the study has been completed. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the consultant would be proposing design controls. Mr. Weber said he did not expect the study to include detailed design con- trols, but rather criteria. He said he understood it would just be a tool that the staff, Commission, and Council would use in reviewing applications. Dr. Brown said the application referred to 60 percent open space. Mr. Weber said the application was in error, that the staff figures were accurate. Mr. Hinchliffe explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, representing the owner of the property, said the plan was prepared over a year ago and did not contain all of the latest thoughts. He said they would submit a new topo map. He said he would have no objection to not grading the individual lots but felt there were advantages to doing so. He said under an RPD less open space than re- quired could be allowed. Mr. Hughes asked how private open space would be controlled if the developer was not building the homes. Mr. Leonard said through the City and through the CC&Rs. Mr. Hughes asked what mechanisms were proposed to keep private open space private. Mr. Leonard said if the City did not want people to build certain size homes with amenities, then these lots should be cut down to 5000 square feet. He wondered about the City's feeling on flag lots. ta /cam. � �- Dr. Brown said he personally was opposedA nd did not feel/li=mss necessary. Mr. Leonard said he did not desire to relocate the street, nor did he want a community garden. Mrs. Bacharach was bothered that the common area would not be improved. Mr. Leonard said he would work with staff. Russ Maguire, 2905 Palos Verdes Drive South, president of the Seaview Resi- dents Association, said they were concerned about lighting and agreed with staff on view obstruction and with clarifying the topo map. He said the Association would like the Commission to consider restrictions on a tennis court such as no lighting, maximum 8 -foot high fencing with black vinyl and the posts painted black. He said there were no main objections to the project. Mr. Hughes asked how the Association felt about security and back yard lighting, etc. Mr. Maguire said they were hoping for low lighting, that they were not op- posed to reasonable lighting. He said the street standards study was still in draft form and that the Committee was now getting feedback from various people. He said they have been getting requests to eliminate parking on both sides and just require it on one side of the streets. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the City would be able to eliminate parking on one side of the streets in the coastal zone. Mr. Weber said he would check on that. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mrs. Bacharach noted the Public Works Department was concerned about the common open space frontage and asked staff to find out why. Mr. Weber said he would find out. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant look at the pro- ject on an RPD basis with 30 percent open space, that there be an 80 -foot right-of-way on the bluff road, that the applicant consider relocating the entrance further down the road, that the applicant reconsider the grading as they felt the less grading the better unless there was a good reason why not, that a more accurate and detailed topo map be submitted, that the tennis courtvbe out, and that alternative concepts be submitted. 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10- COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the DiNoto letter which the Commission received. Mr. Weber said it was the result of a misunderstanding. He said staff advises at the time of application that a request of this type will probab- ly be denied. He said the City Manager's office has responded to the letter. Mr. Hughes said if staff felt it was necessary for the Commission to res- pond by letter he would be happy to draft one. Mr. Weber said he would transmit a copy of the response to the Commission. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the City check with the City Attorney and develop a form for applicants to sign off which states they have read and understand the procedures, etc. He felt a form which explains procedures, etc., would save staff time and eliminate misunderstandings. ADJOURNMENT Q.. m. At 12:10 pm. it was moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn to Tuesday, February 26, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 2/12/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -11-