Loading...
PC MINS 19800624M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 24, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. 6a,a.r PRESENT: -Brewn, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Brown LATE ARRIVAL: McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber, Associate Planner Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planner Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of June 10, 1980, were approved with the following amendment: page 1, paragraph 4, line 7, should read "...related to retaining..." CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14 REVISIONS Ms. Lavitt said the request was for in - Tract 32614, Villa Verde, Crest & stallation of a swimming pool located Crenshaw within the common area surrounded by Applicant: Roger C. Werbel, Inc. units 31, 32, 23, and 24. She described Landowner: Valley Crest Company the access to the pool site and said it was adequate to accommodate the increase in foot traffic generated by the pool. She said the close proximity of the pool to the four -units may cause certain noise impacts to those units both by the pool equipment and individuals using the pool. She said an enclosure around the pool equipment would sufficiently mitigate high levels of noise. She said the pool fencing would comply with the building code specifications for wrought iron fencing. In addition she said the applicant was requesting the installation of a 6 -foot wrought iron fence at the east property line which would be placed at the top of the slope. She said this proposed fence was in addition to a 42 -inch perimeter fence at the edge of the right-of-way at street level. She said the site also includes fencing around the rear of each unit, required because each unit will have its own private spa. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:40 p.m. Ms. Lavitt said the proliferation of fences at the site would considerably change the character of the project. Staff felt the request would add even more clutter to a project that appears more dense than it actually is. She said the 2:1 slope along the same area of the proposed fence could provide the same amount of security that an additional fence could provide. She said there was no Code criteria for either of the requests. Staff recom- mended that the amendment to the conditional use permit be approved for the swimming pool and that the request to install a wrought iron fence at the top of the slope at the easterly side of the project be denied. Mr. Hughes said his understanding of the stairway was that it would provide access from Crenshaw through the development so that the children could get to school without having to walk around the entire development. Dr. Brown asked if there was any proposal for solar heating or for a pool cover. Ms. Lavitt said staff discussed that with the applicant, and that he felt it would be possible for a pool cover but that there was no room for solar panels. Carl Von Badinski, representing the applicant, did not feel solar heating would be possible but said a pool cover would help considerably. He said the reason for having the fence at the top was so that children would not fall down the hill. He also wondered if there was a chance of having rest- room facilities near the pool, particularly for children. Mr. Hughes asked about the landscape plan. Ms. Lavitt said the applicant was currently in the process of revising the approved landscape plan. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said he would not have any problem with conditions as long as they were directly related to the pool. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about the energy consumption with each unit having its own jacuzzi and heaters in addition to the heater which would be required for the pool. He did not feel that the applicant had explored all alternatives for heating the pool. Mr. Hughes had similar concerns. He also said the Commission had originally spent a great deal of time on the location of the tennis courts. He said the courts were located down the hill to reduce noise impacts and now the applicant was proposing a pool near the units. Mr. McTaggart agreed and said the Commission determined that the best loca- tion for the recreational facilities was as far away as possible from the residences. He also felt if the Commission was going to discuss restrooms for the area, they should be looking at a plan which includes them. Dr. Brown shared the concerns mentioned by the other Commissioners. Mr. Hinchliffe said based on Commission comments, it appeard that if the pool had been proposed in the beginning, it probably would be located down where the tennis courts were. He asked if the proposed pool location was an atypical relationship to the units. Mr. Weber said it was probably atypical in terms of residential planned developments which have been approved. He said there was a situation on Island View which was similar to this, but that there were no similar situa- tions in the same zoning classification. Mr. McTaggart said Crenshaw provided a natural barrier and he felt the pool belonged with the tennis courts because it also generated noise. Dr. Baer said it was fairly common to have the pool close to the units in apartment and condominium developments. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant explore and present to the Commission alternate proposals for the location of the pool. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said the applicant proposed two fences, the perimeter fence and the fence at the top of the slope. Mr. McTaggart said the perimeter fence at 42 inches would be a decorative fence rather than a security fence. He said this project appeared to be the most fenced -in project in the City. Mr. Von Badinski said they would be willing to just go along with the 42 - inch fencing and withdraw the request for two fences. Mr. Hughes said he was not opposed to a fence along the top, but he was opposed to two fences. Dr. Baer said perhaps a fence at the top would better protect the landscaping. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously car- ried, the item was tabled to give the applicant the opportunity to explore alternatives re the pool location and to determine whether or not it is feasible to heat the pool by some means other than gas, i.e. solar heating. 6/24/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- • Dr. Brown explained to the applicant he look at alternatives both in terms He suggested that the applicant meet CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Fences E that the Commission was requesting that of location and of heating the pool. with staff to discuss this. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, this item was moved to follow the first item under New Business. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38512 Mr. Thompson said this request was for Lots 2 & 3, Tract 26414, corner the subdivision of a 2.14 acre, 2 -parcel of Palos Verdes Drive site, into 7 lots for the future con - South & Forrestal struction of single family homes. He Landowner/Applicant: J.-& D. Ti6lbns said the Commission must decide whether to permit a private street or require a public street, -as -that issue affects the lot sizes. He referred to the chart in the staff report which showed that with a public road all of the lots except Lot 3 would be substandard. Staff was opposed to a private street based on the reasons listed in the staff report. He said the grading plan was in compliance with the criteria listed in the staff report. He presented the view analysis illustrating potential view obstruction. Staff felt that the project would not create a significant volume of traffic. Mr. Thompson said the Public Works Depart- ment indicated that the location of the proposed street provided adequate line of sight. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, discuss the issues, and continue the item to a future meeting. Mr. Hughes asked if the original 5 -lot proposal also had substandard lots. Mr. Thompson said with a public street they would have been substandard. He said with the current application, in order for all of the lots to be of standard size with a public street, 6 lots would probably be permitted. Dr. Brown explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. Dorothy Tielens, 3 Wrangler Road, Rolling Hills, said the main controversy was whether there should be a private or public street. She said with a private street they have 2000-3000 square feet over the minimum lot size re- quirements for 7 lots. She said because of the orientation of the adjacent units, there would be no visual impact. She said there was no traffic im- pact. She felt a private roadway was best suited for this small development. She said the City granted approval for a private roadway with Tract 29795 on Via Campesina, which was also for 7 lots. She said in that subdivision they used a 28 -foot wide private street and used the footage of the roadway to meet the minimum requirements for lot size. She said the homeowners would maintain the street. Mr. Hinchliffe said the application indicated there would be no homeowners association and that there would have to be one to accomplish street main- tenance. Mrs. Tielens said she would not object to changing the application on that issue. Gian Carlo Moriconi, 4031 Palos Verdes Drive South, owner of the corner lot, said when he purchased the lot he was thinking of having it rezoned to Com- mercial for a restaurant, but that many of the neighbors were opposed, and there was a great deal of concern about traffic and parking. He said pri- vate streets have been granted in the area and he addressed the impacts to safety and security which result from transient traffic. Fred Marks, 10581 Butterfield, Los Angeles, spoke in support of the project as proposed. Julien Tielens, 3 Wrangler Road, Rolling Hills, said there should be no problems with view obstruction. 6/24/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. Thompson referred to the letter which was distributed to the Commission from the Palos Verdes South Homeowners Association opposing the private road. Mike Burk, 3642 Vigilance, asked questions concerning the street and lot sizes. He said he would be reporting back to the above-mentioned homeowners association. Mr. Hughes suggested that Mr. Burk ask the association whether they would like this development to be a part of the association, since it is adjacent to it and directly along the access. Jack Jacobs, 3570 Heroic Drive, was concerned about the location of the en- trance. He suggested moving the access further away from the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal, perhaps 250 feet instead of 150 feet. He said he was concerned with the safety aspect. Mr. Marks pointed out that at one time there was a mobil service station on the corner with cars coming in and out all day, and that this development proposed only 7 lots. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. McTaggart was opposed to private streets and particularly gated private streets. He felt the grading plan would probably not be objectionable and should not create view blockage. He felt, however, that the elevations should be clearly defined. Mr. Hughes was opposed to private roads both philosophically and because of the problems created due to lack of maintenance, substandard size, etc. He said if there was a strong desire to have a private road, at the very least it should meet all the street standards guidelines and the property dimen- sions should be taken from the same place as any other lot fronting a public street. He said that would mean they were discussing a 6 -lot subdivision. Dr. Baer felt since the street was not very long and only served 7 lots the normal street width should not be required since there will not be many cars using it. He also said less pavement meant more green area. He said he was not opposed to a private street in,this situation &-A ,ado A-tl� 6Zf Mr. Hinchliffe did not feel that this situation warranted a private street but that perhaps they should look at taking access off of the frontage road. Dr. Brown said he was generally opposed to private streets and that histoki- cally they have created a lot of problems for the City. He suggested looking at alternatives, possibly access off of the frontage road. He said Mr. Hughes suggested that the road meet street standards which would reduce the number of units. He said any changes would have some bearing on the view analysis. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission did not consider private streets suitable for the development proposed for this site and directed the applicant to revise the plans to reflect that the development be constructed with a public street pursuant to the street standards study. RECESS At 10:02 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:09 p.m. with the same members present. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Mr. Thompson said the City Council dis- Fences cussed the revisions to the Fence Ordi- nance as recommended by the Planning Commission and resolved that the Fence Ordinance should allow 6 -foot fences to be built in the front and street side setback areas with approval of a minor exception permit; and that certain 6/24/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- criteria be met in order to approve a minor exception permit. Per the Code, since the Council modified the Commission's recommendation, the proposed ordinance has been referred back to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. Staff recommended that the Commission review and express a consensus of opinion of the Fence Ordinance as proposed by the Council. The Commissioners expressed concern on the following: 1) They should look again at the wording in the second paragraph under Section 9620, concerning lots front- ing on private streets. 2) Clarify Section 9621 C., possibly adding "maximum 6 - feet in height measured from the uphill side." 3) More definitive language in Section 9622 2., perhaps "public view." 4) Add "and other similar types of wire fences" to Sec- tion 9622 3. 5) Clarify Section 9622 B., concerning combined fences. Staff was to come back with some changes for the Commission to review. LOCAL EIR GUIDELINES Mr. Thompson said.on July 1 the City Council was expected to adopt the new guidelines which staff and the City Attorney's office worked on. He discussed the review process chart. He said no formal action was required; that the Commission should just review and discuss the material. Mr. Weber explained the reasons for having the hearings concurrently. The Commission briefly discussed the guidelines. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said at one of the budget sessions the Park & Recreation Commit- tee decided they could not longer deal with the trails study, so the Council referred it to the Planning Commission. He said there was no money budgeted and no staff time allotted for the study. He said the Council would like the Commission to produce in the next fiscal year a very concise list of trail standards. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Hughes was nomi- nated vice-chairman. There were no other nominations. Mr. Hughes was unanimously A.�EA,t,v- C d -- to held that office. f -c OTHER MATTERS Mr. Hinchliffe said the Planning Commis- sion in Richmond runs their meetings differently. He said they had a rule that any items not heard before 11:00 p.m. were automatically rotated to the next meeting. Mr. McTaggart suggested limiting speakers to 5 minutes. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that staff check with the City Attorney concerning these types of rules for meetings. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. Weber said there was nothing new with Jacobson, that it was in the Judge's hands. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. Weber said Holtzman's pre-trial was set for July 10. 6/24/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the mixed use housing information. Mr. Weber said he was still collecting that information and that hopefully he would get it to the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Hinchliffe said Mr. Levitt was agreeable to a Thursday meeting with Dr. Brown and himself. He said due to conflicts in schedules, it would probably not take place until sometime in July. ADJOURNMENT At 11:35 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, July 8, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. 6/24/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-