Loading...
PC MINS 198005279 J10 MINUTES (19) City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting May 27, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Mr. Hughes. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, Mr. Hughes was selected to act as chairman this evening. PRESENT: Brown, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: Hinchliffe Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber, Associate Planner Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planner Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES von motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of May 13, 1980 were approved with the following amendments: page 1, paragraph 8, line 7, should read "...analysis the staff..."; page 3, paragraph 9, line 2, should read "...built within the..."; page 7, paragraph 9, line 3, should read "...Peninsula View Points....... sponsored by the Rancho Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Association."; and page 7, paragraph 10, line 2, should read "...copies of the Prima report." TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35040 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 51 Commission granted conceptual approval Palos Verdes Drive South at to the project and requested that cer- Seahill Drive tain modifications be made to a number Landowner: Calwah Dev., Inc. of view critical units, primarily Applicant: Young & Associates those that back up to Palos Verdes Drive South. He said the applicant has revised the plans, lowering the units up to six feet. He said in balancing the height of the retaining walls and lowering the units for view preservation, staff felt view preservation outweighed the retaining wall heights. He reviewed the revised plans which were on display. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution; and that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative tract map subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the draft Council resolution. He said per previous Commis- sion discussion, condition #11 of the conditional use permit resolution has been modified to reflect that solar energy shall be utilized as the primary heat source rather than the only source and further requiring instal- lation of a pool cover. As there is no information at this time regarding the size, etc., of the pool, the condition was worded to require that the plans for the solar energy system and the back-up system be reviewed by the Director of Planning. He said condition #7 was also modified to reflect Commission discussion with the addition of subcondition H concerning the access easement. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about condition #12 as it relates to the view from the Drive and structural problems at the time the solar installa- tions take place. He said at this time no one knew how many panels would be required to handle hot water heating. He was also concerned that the condition could be misinterpreted to mean that a solar system was required. Mr. Weber said the intent of that condition was to require the construction of a system which would allow for easy conversion to solar energy at a future time if the owners chose to do so. He said the condition could be reworded to insure that no one in the future misinterpreted the condition. • i qV Roy Young, Young & Associates, project architect, responded to Commission questions. Per Dr. Brown's suggestion, the Commission changed the wording in condition #11 to read "...A mechanized pool cover..." Per Mr. McTaggart's suggestion the Commission changed the wording in condition #12 to read "...plumbing and circulating system....... of solar energy as part of the hybred system for providing hot water. Solar....... placed. The proposed solar installation shall be..." Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 80-8, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 51 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", with conditions #11 and #12 amended as stated above. Roll call vote -was as follows: AYES: Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Dr.Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract .Map No. 35040 subject to the condi- tions contained in -the draft resolution. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded Fences by Mr. McTaggart, that if no one was present to speak on this item it be moved to follow item VI. D. in the agenda. There was no one present to speak on the matter. As there were no objections, Mr. Hughes so ordered that the order of the agenda be changed as stated above. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 444 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for 1711 3 Yellowbrick Road (Lot 3, cubic yards of cut in conjunction with Tract 29795) the construction of a single family resi- Applicant/Landowner: Nordahl dence. She said the lot had a total & Pineros average slope of 36 percent, the proposed maximum depth of cut was 10 feet, and the maximum created slopes would not exceed 35 percent. She said the retaining walls conform to the Code criteria except for one section of the sideyard retaining wall bcated near the east property line, at which point the wall measured 4 feet in height. She said the wall height was not considered excessive to the primary use of the lot, since the sideyard wall sloped with the natural slope. She said the 6 inches which exceed the maximum height was consistent with the concepts of the Code and was only along one foot of the wall. She said the proposed driveway slope was less than the 20 percent maximum allowed by the Code. She said the pro- ject also consisted of a height variation for which a full investigation has not yet been made. She said, however, that it was estimated that no view obstruction would be encountered. Staff recommended approval of the grading application. Mr. McTaggart asked if anyone had reviewed the capabilities of the drainage system in the proposed plan. Mr. Weber said the plan check. changes to the to the City. that would normally be done in He said'& modifications were grading plan or the elevations, the Building & Safety phase of required that involved the project would be returned 5/27/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hughes wondered if it was possible to mark the plaas '•'approved for grading only" and flag the plans to ask Building & Safety about drainage: Dr. Brown expressed concern about the sewer system as he had heard of major problems in the area. Mr. Weber said part of the approval of the tract 29795 tied into the system in Palos Verdes Estates. He said he was not aware of any problems other than the fact that some people put in their own systems -without proper permits. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Grading No. 444 subject to the notation relative to flagging the County Engineer's attention to the drainage for the site and marking the plans "approved for grading only." GRADING NO. 445 APPEAL Ms. Lavitt said the request was for 27762 Palos Verdes Drive East 280 cubic yards of grading (130 cut/150 Appellant/Landowner: J. Mathison fill) together with an existing (unap- proved) downslope retaining wall. She said the wall ran almost the entire width of the subject property and stepped with the slope, retaining 4 feet of earth at the easterly side and graduating in height to a maximum of 7 feet on the west side. She said the Code allows a maximum height of 3 feet 6 inches. She said the wall with the accompanying fill creates a level area approximately 9 feet wide behind the subject residence. She said the fill along the westerly side exceeds the 5 feet maximum allowed by Code, and the wall and safety fence have a combined total height of 12 feet. She said based on the above nonconformities with the Code, staff denied the application and that staff's decision was then appealed to the Commission. She read the related sections of the Development Code. Staff recommended denial of the appeal based on the reasons listed in the staff report; and further recommended that the Commission direct the applicant to begin demolition of that portion of the wall exceeding the height limit within 30 days of the decision and complete demolition within 60 days of the decision. James Mathison, 27762 Palos Verdes Drive East, said he built the wall because he felt his home was in danger due to erosion. He said the pool and deck showed signs of slippage. He said he did not build the wall any higher than necessary. He presented photographs to the Commission and wondered why the house was allowed to be built so close to the slope. Mr. Hughes said the house was probably built prior to the City's incorporation. Dr. Brown asked if there were any earlier photographs or some other supporting evidence of the erosion/slippage problem. He asked if there were any other ways to handle the problem. Mr. Weber said compacted slopes meeting City and County laws and adequate ground cover would probably correct the situation. Mr. McTaggart said the required remedy appeared to be very dramatic and costly. He asked the applicant if during construction of the wall he found evidence of native soil. Mr. Mathison said yes. He added that he has spent about $8000 so far and that the work must be done by hand since they cannot get machinery in there. Dr. Brown wanted the record to reflect that the applicant contacted him after receiving notice from the City about the wall. He said he directed the applicant to discuss the matter with the staff. He said the request clearly did not meet the Code but he felt there were slippage/erosion problems. He said it would be a very expensive procedure to remove some of the wall. He said he would feel more comfortable making a decision if there was a soils report Mr. McTaggart pointed out that if they could not get equipment in, recompact- ing the slope as suggested by staff would present a major problem. Mr. Hughes was concerned that the retaining wall had not been inspected during its construction and the City did not know the geology of the slope. He felt this put the City in a difficult position in the event of a failure of the wall. He was not sure how a portion of the one -foot thick wall could be physically removed. 5/27/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. Weber said he had not been to the site but that, not speaking from an engineering standpoint, perhaps they could remove some of the fill thereby reducing the retaining portion of the wall. Dr. Brown wondered if the County could inspect the wall at this stage. He said the Code required a 5 -foot fence around the pool. Mr. Hughes suggested that the Commission continue the item and direct the applicant to prepare a grading plan reflecting Mr. Weber's proposed compromise and showing what treatment the balance of the retaining wall would have. Mr. Weber said after looking at the photographs, he was no longer bothered by the flat area immediately adjacent to the house. He suggested going to a 2:1 slope rather than a 3:1 slope. He said he was primarily concerned with the area away from the house. Dr. Brown asked if there was a reasonable expectation that the City could' have Building & Safety look at the wall. Mr. Weber said they would look at the wall, but would probably not be willing to give an opinion without a detailed investigation of the wall. He said a lot depends on the height of the wall because certain heights have to be engineered differently. Mr. Hughes said he would like to see a coordinated plan. He said if the County would not inspect the wall, what recourse did the City have. He asked if there were legal mechanisms to hold the City harmless. Mr. Weber said he would discuss the matter with the City Attorney. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to continue this item until such time as the previously mentioned concerns had been addressed. Mr. Hughes explained to the applicant that the Commission was directing him to work with staff in 1) working with Building & Safety to inspect the existing wall; and 2) -providing the Commission with a plan for completion of the retaining wall and his proposed treatment of the graded area so that the Commission could deal with it as a legal wall. The Commission specified that their concerns were with a Building & Safety inspection, a complete plan, and recontouring or regrading. The above motion carried unanimously. RECESS At 9:30 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 61 Ms. Lavitt said the request was to in - 27990 Palos Verdes Drive East stall lighting for an existing tennis Applicant/Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. court. She described the surrounding Jack Atkinson properties and the access to the site. She said the plan called for the placement of 8 perimeter lights located on stancheons elevated 18 feet above ground. She said each light fixture was comprised of one 1000 watt halide bulb. She said the applicant has indicated that the family's use of the court would be extended by the instal- lation of the lights but that its use was not expected to be excessive. She said the primary concern with lighting is its impact on adjacent properties. She said the stancheons and fixtures would be directly visible from 5 or pos- sibly 6 of the properties to the west of the Drive. She said mature tree growth would probably obscure the fixtures from other surrounding properties. She said the lighting contractor indicated that any impact on the residents at the lower elevation could be eliminated by shielding the light fixtures and that there should be no potential for impact on properties at a higher elevation. She said the court was not visible from the properties at the higher elevation but the stancheons were, and that the fixtures were construct- ed in such a way that there would be no -reflection above the light source. She said the lighting contractor indicated that off -court illumination would not present an appreciable impact on the surrounding properties and that the color of the court surface would not affect the reflection of the lighting. She said screening on the court fence could decrease any illumination and further mitigate additional impact to the neighbors at the lower elevation. 5/27/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- She said the only previous decision on tennis court lights was for the Iacono property on Miraleste Drive. She said the lighting approved was for the maximum wattage of 400 per bulb, and that it has been indicated to her by the Iacono family --that the court was seldom used in the evening because of the poor lighting. She said the issue of visual character of the area was critical and that the staff's concern was that the lighting would affect the rural character of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff felt since the proposed court was for family recreational use it was logical to assume that it would not be used constantly during the evening hours and, therefore, the impact would be limited. Although visual character was a staff concern, staff recommended that the Commission approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Ms. Lavitt said photographs were taken from the properties above but had not yet been delivered by the film processor. Mr. Hughes explained the public hearing procedure and opened the public hearing. Jack Atkinson, 27990 Palos Verdes Drive East, said the primary reason for the lighting was that he worked long hours and did not get home until around 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. He said he played tennis for recreational reasons and health reasons. He requested that the Commission review condition #4 relating to windscreens. He felt they would block his view of the landscaping and that of his neighbors. He felt the court would be more beautiful without the windscreens. He explained that the tennis court was in their front yard. He said currently they could look through the chain link fence and see their many beautiful trees, some of which were just recently planted. He said the windscreens would create the feeling that there was another structure between their home and that of their neighbors across the way. Dr. Brown pointed out that besides for purposes of reducing'�"*i0'" rQ4'Q=4-;^r, windscreens were used to mitigate noise impacts. Herb Bieber, 626 S. Isis Avenue, Inglewood, said the 1000 watt bulbs would produce an off -court illumination of one footcandle. He discussed shielding without windscreens and said the proposed shields were the same as those used at the Palos Verdes Tennis Club. He said the light source was completely blocked. It was his feeling that a tennis court without windscreens was more aesthetically pleasing, that the windscreens were just like a solid wall. Glenn Corson, 27996 Palos Verdes Drive East said the tennis court was right across the private drive from his home, that the front of this home faced the tennis court. He said he and the applicant had discussed the fencing before the tennis court was constructed. He said he wanted the fenc- ing and the posts to be black. He said with that they do not see the fence at all and felt windscreens would ruin the effect they are currently enjoying. He said windscreens would be a distraction and would have the effect of constructing another building between the homes. He said the trees were quite large and that he had no objection to the proposed lights. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question by Mr. McTaggart, Ms. Lavitt said there were many letters supporting the request and one letter of opposition. Mr. McTaggart said the Commission required 400 watt instead of 1000 watt bulbs for the Iacono --tennis court because of the halo effect created by the higher wattage. He said in this case there was one affected property owner who has objected. He said the neighbors would be impacted by the lighting -.and the noise. Dr. Brown felt the Commission should see the photographs from the properties above, as he felt 18 -foot poles would clearly be seen. He said he has seen the Palos Verdes Country Club and agreed that the shielding does work. He noted that the Iacono tennis court was located in a canyon and, therefore, the effects were intensified to a greater degree than would occur in this case. He was in favor of windscreens to further mitigate the light and noise. He said immediate neighbors were often not as affected as those above. 5/27/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mr. Atkinson noted that this was an existing tennis court and he has been playing tennis every weekend. Mr. Hughes said if the neighbors did not object to the noise he was not too concerned either, but he was concerned about the halo effect --- the nighttime glow that changes the character of the area during the evening hours. He felt that seeing the light 8tancheon from above did not mean there would be a problem, that because they were looking down they would not see the lightsource. He felt there was enough shielding proposed to prevent spillage off the court. His main concern was looking through the lights at a View. He said without the lights installed he did not know how to make that judgement. He also pointed out that the closer the light fixture was to any surface, the greater the reflected light would be. Mr. McTaggart agreed that the Commission should see the photographs before making a decision. He was also concerned about the halo effect. He said people cannot relate to the potential noise effect of tennis being played 7 days a week instead of just weekends. He said the problem was addressed in the environmental assessment and staff has recommended windscreens. He said the Commission must address the issue. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to continue the matter to the next meeting and that photographs be available at that time. Mr. Hughes suggested that staff also bring the photographs of Iacono's lighting to that meeting. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the above motion was amended to continue to matter to the first meeting in July at which time staff was to present photographs of this site and also bring the photographs which had been taken of the Iacono tennis court lighting. The motion carried unanimously. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 6 Mr. Thompson said the request was to 980 Silver Spur Road (Silver amend the Land Use Map of the General Spur & Crenshaw) Plan from Commercial Office to Commer- Applicant: Albert Levitt cial Retail. He said, if approved, a zone change would be necessitated. He said the actual proposed develop- ment on the site, which would be reviewed under a conditional use permit application at a later date, was a commercial retail and office development which would span the City boundary between Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes. He explained the procedure for the General Plan Amendment and said the Commission was to make a recommendation to the City Council. He said the 2.05 acre site was part of a larger parcel which was under one ownership. He said the overall vacant parcel was 3.06 acres in size with 1.01 acres within the City of Rolling Hills Estates. He said from Silver Spur Road the site within Rancho Palos Verdes sloped up steeply at a relatively uniform grade of about 40 to 50 percent, although there was one area with a slope of about 20 percent. He said the environmental assessment identified three areas of concern: topography, land use compatibility, and traffic/circulation. He said information supplied by the applicant states that the proposed retail/office designation would be com- patible with the ad]acent areas, and that the change in traffic would not be significant to adversely affect circulation in or around the site. He reviewed the measure proposed to mitigate any potential adverse effects with respect to topography, as stated in the staff report. He discussed the possi- bility of reclassifying portions of the site Open Space Hazard, but pointed out that if that reclassification occurred it may preclude any type of project coordination for development on the site by the two cities. He said the Open Space zone permits only non -permanent structures necessary for the utilization of the open space land and would, therefore, preclude the project that is being proposed. He discussed the issues of geology, biotic resource, visual aspects, and fiscal consideration. He said since the proposed amendment will encourage a greater variety of uses on the site, it was staff's . . on that the request was consistent with the Pen- insula Center Master - which was authored by the City of Rolling Hills Estates. He reviewed the Development Code considerations, including the Overlay Control District, and referred to the chart in the staff report illustrating the difference in requirements between the Commercial Professional 5/27/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- and Commercial Neighborhood zones and also comparing the Rolling Hills Estates' CG (adjacent site) zone. He said without benefit of a detailed view analysis at this time, staff was of the opinion that the difference in the visual impact of a structure built in conformance with the standards of the CN zone versus the CP zone was not significant. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, and approve a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request to amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan from the current land designation of Commercial Office to Commercial Retail and to remove the existing Natural Overlay Control District. Public hearing was opened. Albert Levitt, 2105 Rosita Place, Palos Verdes Estates, said the commercial portion of the development would be divided equally between the two cities, but that it would be mostly offices. Dan Koehler, 4944 Golden Arrow Drive, said this winter the hill experienced some landsliding. He felt the Commission should also take into consideration the number of accidents which occur in the area, and he was concerned about the proposed ingress and egress for this project. He was also concerned with how the development would look and how high the structures might be. He said he lived above the site and slightly to the west and was concerned about the noise factor. He said commercial would generate more traffic and remain open later at night than most offices. Dr. Brown proposed a motion to close the public hearing. The motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about removing the overlay control district, and there was Commission discussion on the possibility of Open Space Hazard zoning. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to close the public hearing. The motion and second were withdrawn. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Koehler said if the project was developed jointly, Rancho Palos Verdes would have some say about what goes in. Mr. Hughes said in a joint effort they should arrive at something suitable for the site. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to recommend that the City Council approve the request to amend the General Plan Map from the current land use designation of Commercial Office to Commercial Retail and to remove the existing Natural Overlay Control District. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Mr. Thompson said at the last meeting Fences the Commission reviewed the proposed amended fence ordinance which, pur- suant to previous Commission direction, had been entirely rewritten into a clearer format and modified with some minor changes. He said staff prepared a draft resolution recommending adop- tion by the City Council of the proposed amendments. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution 80-9, thereby recommending to the City Council -approval of Code Amendment No. 9, concerning fences. 5/27/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe COMMISSSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes noted that the Leauge of Women Voters served coffee at the last City Council meeting. He felt if the League was going to serve coffee to the City Council, coffee should also be served to all the Commissions and staff. Dr. Brown asked if there was any further information on the Jacobson case. Mr. Weber said he had no further information. Mr. Hughes asked if there was any further information on the Holtzman tennis court. Mr. Weber said no. ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, June 10, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 5/27/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -8-