Loading...
PC MINS 19800722M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting July 22, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe, Baer, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary TN]eber and Assistant Planner John Emeterio. APPPOVA.L OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the minutes of the Work Session of June 19, 1980, were unanimously approved. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by :Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of July 8, 1980, were approved with the following amendments made by Dr. Brown: page 2, paragraph 2 should read, "...were houses above the site..."; page 2, paragraph 13 should read, "Mr. McTaggart said...." CONDITONAL USE PERMIT NO. 42 Mr. Weber reviewed a letter from Time Extension Marymount College included in the Mar_ymount Palos Verdes College Agenda packet which asks for an additional four (4) month - extension on Conditional Use Permit No. 42. Staff is recommending approval and if approved it would be extended to November 14, 1980. Mr. McTaggart asked if the extension was caused by unforseen building problems or did it have something to do with geological problems. Mr. Weber assured Mr. McTaggart that the extension was asked because of a revision in the concept. On motion of Por. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried unanimously, it was moved to grant the extension to November 14, 1980. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 442 Mr. Weber said the Planning Commission Resubmittal reviewed this particular application 6461 Chartres Drive (Lot 143, on two previous occasions (May 13 and Tract 25160) June 10). On June 10, the concern Applicant: RST Construction was with the slope of the backvard Landowner: Mr. &-Mrs. R. McCue and side yard which would be created by -the project. There is a chart in the staff report which identifies those slope conditions on the previous submittal and the latest submittal which proposes a reduction in the slope. It had been recommended that the applicant try to achieve a 3:1 slope in the rear area, however, it was the applicant's analysis that showed a 3:1 slope to be impractical because it would require an additional retaining wall on the property line. The plan submitted showed several different slope conditions. Staff review shows a 2:1 slope is most acceptable and therefore recommends that the Commission approve revised Grading Application *lo. 442 and that the slope maintain a 2:1 slope in the rear. 9 Pi Mr. George Nakasone, 2440 Westwood Boulevard, representing the applicant, stated that he had worked closely��if_h Staff and compromised the plan as much as possible. He was hopeful that the Commission would accept the plan and Staff's recommendation. The Commission wanted assurance that the revised gradinq plan is - acceptable to Staff. Mr. Weber stated that it was acceptable. Dr. Brown and Mr. Hughes complimented Mr. Nakasone for working with Staff and coming up with a S-'0fA_ion_, that the Commission found more acceptable. Mr. Hughes moved that the Commission accept the Staff recommendation on the Grading Application No. 442, 3rd application. Mr. McTaggart seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12715 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 62 West side of Nantasket Drive, extending north to Beachview Drive and south to Seacove Drive Applicant: CFPV Associates, Ltd. Landowner: Hanna -Barbera, Markne-land Mr. Emeterio stated-thAt-on July 2, 1980, the Planning Commisison first heard this subject and gave conceptual approval. They --also requested making landscape changes and various other conditions to ensure short and long term maintenance which are now reflected in the most recently submitted plans. Staff now recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 12715 and Conditional Use Permit No. 62 subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolutions with the following minor changes: Add-cohdition number 13 to exhibit "A" of Conditional Use Permit No. 62, "the approved site plan is subject to revision by Director of Planning to allow for a 30' wide public access easement on the northern most part of lot 1 of TPM 12715,'if needed for future access." Add to condition number 11 of exhibit "A" TPM 12715 following the words "other easements" "...including public access on the iiorilern-most 30' of lot 1, TPM 12715,may be requited." It was stated that if the access was needed, the retaining wall could be relocated and the parking lot would lose 4-6 spaces. This would not cause a problem because they had adequate parking spaces in the lot. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Emeterio to point out on the parcel map what changes were ei-s-kie(4. for. Mr. Hughes suggested that the amendment add the words, "In case it is needed." Mr. Weber suggested that what they could do tonight was to grant approval to the parcel map which is essentially the division of land and maintain the option to take a 30' easement on the property. Mr. Weber asked for administrative ability to require the 30' easement and said it was very simple and nothing irregular. Mr. Hughes asked what would determine the easement right-of-way. The Commission expressed great concern about delaying the decision about taking the easement. They wanted assurance that there would be no problem in the future over taking the easement. Mr. Weber indicated that the City could do that, but he felt Staff needed to study the situation a little more. July 22, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hinchliffe asked what was going to trigger the City to take action or not to take action. Mr. Weber stated that the matter would require further analysis to know for sure, but if there was any question as to whether Parcel 2 would have proper and adequate access the City would require it. Dr. Baer asked if there was any objection to asking for the easement at this meeting. Mr. Weber stated there were no major objections, however, there were several things which should be considered before doing it. Steven Sloca, Attorney for the applicant next spoke to the Commission. He explained to the Commission that during the course of subdividing this parcel, that Marineland would retain ownership of Parcel 2 as an agri- cultural parcel. It was agreed that in selling Parcel 1, Marineland would not require access through Parcel 1 to Parcel 2. Mr. Sloca stated that at the present time there would be no reason to develop the easement because Beachview ends and Parcel 2 is accessible from Marineland. At re��s��e,p�t there is no use being made of the easement. Because of that;r'�''`�nte`�° u`id prefer to use the space for parking. If, at a later date, the City wanted to extend Beachview through that piece of property, they would turn over the parking spaces to the City. If the City took the easement now, they would have to maintain it. He said they are willing to maintain the easement, and that the applicant would like to use it as parking spaces. Dr. Brown asked if there would be a problem if the City decided to take the easement and the applicant had to give up the parking places. Mr. Sloca indicated there woul ,be no problem because they still had the 2:1 requirement neededl°4,'0 e dded spaces would be strictly a convenience. Dr. Brawn asked Mr. Weber about the possibility of taking the easement now but allowing the parking spaces to be used. Mr. Weber felt that there was no immediate problem however, he was concerned about the practical matter of removing the spaces:__ ` Mr. McTaggart -said that a Notice to Vacate could be issued and that this could be a condition. Mr. Sloca was asked if there was any problem with the Coastal Commission; the answer was negative. It was moved by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe that the Commission adopt PC Resolution No-. 80-12 thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 62 subject to Exhibit "A" and subject to a condition that requires dedication of an easement on the northern 30' of the lot. The motion was then rephrased to say that a 30' easement will be taken by the City and the specific wording "should -be worked out by the Director of Planning. This motion was approved unanimously. It was also moved by Hughes, seconded by Hinchliffe that PC Resolution No. 80-13 be approved subject to Exhibit "A" with a condition requiring an access easement, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 12715 on the northern 30' of the property. This motion was approved unanimously. Dr. Brown stated that appealsAdould be made on these decisions within fiffeen (15) calendar- days. July 22, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 55 Mr. Emeterio reviewed the Staff VARIANCE NO. 44 report with the Commission. -He then GRADING NO. 409 (REVISED) went to the blackboard where the Professional Office Building most recent plans were displayed. Northwest corner of Crest & Hawthorne Boulevard Mr. McTaggart asked about an Applicant: Neil Stanton Palmer, AIA obstruction problem relative to the Landowner: Universal Trade & market (Ralph's) across the street Industries Inc. and where the sightings were taken. Mr. Emeterio indicated the sightings were taken in the parking lot. Mr. Hughes also asked what the proposed economic life of the building was and if there were detailed plans. Mr. Emeterio did not know the proposed economic life of the building and detailed plans had not been submitted. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the possibility of the County Geo- logical Department turning the project down and the applicant spending a lot of money. Mr. Hughes asked if it was possible to develop a building that would fit on the site without a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Emeterio said no. Mr. John Manavian of Neil Stanton Palmer, 672 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates addressed the Commission. He indicated that this was the first time his firm had addressed the Commission. He stated that the building was a completely new concept. Members of the firm had met with the Monte Verde Homeowners Association and had discussed their concerns. They had actively sought input from the public and took their considerations one by one. Concerning the geological problem, Mr. Manavian indicated that his firm had had vast experience building on the Peninsula. He was sure that the geological retort would be favorable and that much of the problems had been the fact that the County was reviewing the wrong plan. He described the type of landscaping proposed, -w-h`lch'�w­ouid -b`e--�ti ­e-_-x_td`nsive, and that the parking would be completely hidden from view. The building materials used would compliment the neighborhood and that the building would set a good precedent. The Commission wanted to know what type of client would occupy the building. "We would be soliciting people from "The Hill" since many residents in the community are professionals who traveled to Century City, Los Angeles, etc.," said John Manavian. The Commission expressed concern that a large amount of new office space was being created. Mr. Manavian answered that his particular building was not a typical office building; that it had many amenities and was unique. Mr. Hinchliffe commented that renting the space was the developer's problem, not the Commission's. Mr. Manavian explained to the Commission that it was the architect's intention to design the building as if it was a single -story, doing this by design and architecture. The Commission wanted assurance that the parking lot was -'not in the slide area and whether the geology would accept such a use. Mr. Manavian told the Commission that the parking lot would be designed with the geology in mind. July 22, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION -4- • • Mr. Hughes noted the buttresses projecting from the building and asked if these buttresses would not become a public nuisance, especially for -children climbing on the -roof. Mr. Manavian said they would look into that particular problem and see whether some modification is necessary. A motion was made that the Zublic-hearing be continued. AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Brown, Hinchliffe ABSTAIN: Baer The entire Commission had concerns over the adequacy of the geology report. They felt that the County should review the report using the current plan. It was felt that the parking problem identified by staff could be alleviated by having them used by the tenants rather than clients. Mr. Hinchliffe was aware of other parking situations of this nature and he said that there were various ways to work around parking places that were not easily accessible. Slope and setbacks were next discussed by the Commission and applicant. The Commission wanted to know the distance from Hawthorne Boulevard to the two protuberances. Mr. Manavian said it was approximately 26 feet. The Commission wanted to know if there would be an obstruction Hawthorne Boulevard from Crest Road. 'Aup Mr. Manavian said the firm would make sure there was no obstruction. SPECIFIC PROBLEMS Grading and geological survey was still in question. Commission needed more data. The Planning Commission was concerned about access to roof elements. Mr. Hughes would like a sighting view analysis from Crest Road going left on Hawthorne Boulevard. The Commission wanted to make sure there were no unsightly mechanical equippient,t,that would be viewed by the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Hughes wanted to know how the whole project would relate to the site in terms of the view analysis. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about slippage in the Parking lot. The Commission definitely wanted a view analysis from the residential areas affected, with the proposed height at 16' and 29'. Dr. Brown suggested to Mr. Manavian that he address the Commission's concerns and report back to the Commission. RECESS A fifteen minute recess was called. The meeting reconvened with the same members present. A motion was made to move Item "F" to follow NEW BUSINESS, Item "A". This motion was unanimously passed. July 22, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION -5- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35799 Mr. Weber reviewed the Staff CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 56 report to the Commission stating South of Palos Verdes Drive South thatit was established,,Alternative - at Conqueror Drive No. 3 was the most appropriate Applicant/Landowner: Petrous for the site. Industries, Inc. Mr. Weber then went to the board where the map was displayed and gave a detailed account of the changes made. He said that sight distances at -the proposed intersection were good, but it was going to be studied further and a written analysis given. He said lot 11 presented a mayor problem. He was trying to get in touch with people who could give expert advice (City Attorney) but had not heard from that office. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if there was going to be a left turn access to the bluff road heading west on Palos Verdes Drive South. Mr. Weber indicated that it was not in the detail. However-, he said this was not a problem, but that he would review the problem. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about traffic, especially on weekends. Mr. Weber stated that he would look into traffic problems. It was also recommended that the grading plan be altered to lower pads on lot 6 in particular, and all Of them in general with the exception of lot 9. Jerry Marani, 4048 Palos Verdes Drive South, spokesman for the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association addressed the Commission. He stated that the Board of Directors of the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association, had met and they had reviewed the plan, and they still did not find it acceptable. _The Association felt that the plan in its present form made no`s�e'n"--i&7even by moving the road. He stated that at the present time there is a natural flow of traffic and moving the road would make it unnatural. He felt from a planning standpoint -171&0-4--1 the road further to the east would serve the same purpose. Regarding questions from the Commission he said there is a vacant area being used by the residents as a community garden. This garden was com-- pletely maintained by the residents. It was moved by Mr. McTaggart that Tentative Tract 35799 be continued to the next meeting as there were still questions that had to be resolved. The motion was unanimously passed. ZONE CHANGE NO. 6 Mr. Weber gave the staff report 980 Silver Spur Road and then the public hearing was Applicant: Albert Levitt opened. Albert Levitt, 2105 Rosita Place, Palos Verdes Estates, the applicant, spoke to the Commission. He explained that he was planning to develop a project consisting of small shops and a restaurant. He had asked for guidelines from the City regardinq zoning and it was recommended that the zoning be changed from Commercial Professional (CP) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). By doing this the zone change would bring the zoning into conformance with the City'�g General Plan Map. Mr. Weber showed the Commission the exact location on a map on the wall. Barbara Daigle, 28016 Beechgate, Rancho Palos Verdes, asked several questions of the Commission as to the differences between Commercial Professional and Commercial Neighborhood. She also wanted to know if removing the Natural Overlay Control District would cause an environ -- mental impact. July 22, 1980 PLANNING CO.MMISSION' MINUTES- • The zoning differences were removing the Natural Overlay environmental impact. 0 explained to her and she was also told that Control District would not resu'lt�:-_in� an Clair Donias, 28013 Seashell Way, Rancho Palos Verdes, noted that Mr. Levitt had been very cooperative constantlyconsulting with the neighbors on his plans. Mr. Donias' concern was the restaurant;its location, hours, odors and the noise it would generate. He also asked about the Environmental Impact Report. Dr. Brown stated that the----roj ec, was as still in the preliminary stages. He explained to Mr. Donias that Rancho Palos Verdes was working very closely with Rolling Hills Estates and that it was to the homeowners' advantage to keep abreast of what was going on, stage by stage. Yuki Kuno, 28009 Seashell Way, next spoke to the Commission. Mr. Kuno's concerns were essentially the same as Mr. Donias and he strongly urged the Commission to go slowly on the zone change. Judy eo-l�, 28003 Seashell Way, was concerned about the q_e6loa,a-I* I -P , impact of the project. She wanted assurance that the project would not endanger their homes. She stated that there had been landslides and wanted assurance it would not happen to her home. The Commission stated that nothing was for sure, but that they would do their best to see that the project would not endanger existing sites. H. J. Kuno, 28009 Seashell Way, was concerned about the height of the building and how close it was to existing residences. He was also concerned with noise, etc., from the restaurant. Mr. Hughes read the Commercial Neighborhood zoning and stated that this zoning was, in fact, much more stringent than the Commercial Professional zoning now in existence. It was moved to close the public hearing. C 0_ Mrs. stated from the audience that the effect of the zone change might open the door and would have an adverse effect. Mr. McTaggart stated that a more consistent zoning with Rolling Hills F-stat_e-s mould be a help to Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hinchliffe felt sympathy with the comments of the neighbors regarding the zone change but he was not sure they understood the zoning change. He, too, felt it was advantageous for Rancho Palos Verdes to have the same zoning as Rolling Hills Estates. It was moved by Mr. Hinchliffe and seconded by Mr. McTaggart that!P.C. resolu- tion No. --8-0-14 be approved, recommending to City Council tha--E the. zoning designation of the official Zoning Map be cnanged to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and the existing Natural Overlay Control District be removed, in donformance with the site's General Plan designation. The motion was unanimously passed. CODE NO. 9 - FENCES Mr. Weber gave the staff report along with the changes suggested in the Resolution. Mr. McTaggart wanted the provision added to Section 9622(A) 3, "...and other similar types of wire fences, fiberglass and other opaque plastic materials." He made a motion to include this provision - it was seconded by Dr. Baer but after discussion by the Commission, it was defeated. July 22, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- After further deliberating the pros and cons of Resolution PC No. 80-9,. it was moved by Mr. Hinchliffe that the Planning Commission send a letter to the City Council recommending once again the Fence Ordinance be left as currently written, but if changed they should incorporate the suggested changes shown in the proposed Resolution which are lined and double -lined in an effort to make it more clear. AYES: Hughes, Brown, Hinchliffe NOES: McTaggart, Baer. There being three (3) Aye votes, the Resolution was passed. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber told the Commission that the District Attorney had continued the Holtzman matter because he had convinced him that he had resolved everything with the City. He also reported that the District Attorney had thrown out the Jacobson matter. Mr. Weber and the Commission continued discussing miscellaneous matters regarding conducting Planning Commission meetings in a more efficient manner. `� conducting that if they tried to shorten the meetings by limiting speakers' length of time to be heard, it might endanger getting all the facts. ADJOURNMENT At 1:00 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn to Tuesday, August 12, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. July 22, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-