Loading...
PC MINS 19800812M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting August 12, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, P'IcTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director Gary Weber, Associate Planner Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planner Sandra Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR On request of Mr. McTaggart, item (A), approval of the minutes of July 11, 1980, was removed by Dr. Brown from the consent calendar, for discussion and action following New.Rusiness. On motion by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the Consent Calendar, as amended, was unanimously passed. TFNTATIVE TPA.CT NO. 38512 Mr. Thompson explained the request Corner of Palos Verdes Drive and said the original proposal was South & Forrestal Drive for 7 lots with private roads. He Applicant/Landowner: Julian said at the last meeting the Commission and Dorothy Tielens directed the applicant to redesign the project incorporating a public street instead of a private street and increasing the square footage of the proposed lots to conform with the site's zoning designation. He reviewed the plans on display which in- cluded the original proposal, the revised plan submitted by the applicant, and also alternative proposals presented by staff. He said the main difference with the revised plan was that the owner of the corner lot decided not to continue with the joint venture and the corner lot, there- fore, was eliminated from the plan. He said the alternative designs provided by staff show access off of the frontage road from Palos Verdes Drive South. Staff felt that with a narrower road and realigning the lot lines, the subdivision design could be improved. Staff recommended. that the Commission review the alternative designs and the revised.,version submitted by the applicant and discuss the issues. " The Commission directed several questions to the problems of where the entrance to the subdivision should be, either from Forrestal Drive or from a frontage road as shown in the alternate design. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if all of the impacts of the realignment of Palos Verdes Drive South had been looked at by staff. Mr. Thompson said the Public Works Director did not indicate any change from what was shown. Mr. Hinchliffe said he understood from the Traffic Committee that there were plans to change the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive :South and Forrestal, that it would be moved further southwest. Mr. Mc.Taggart noted that they have had previous testimony about the safety of that intersection, and the objection of some of the existing residents that the roadway coming out onto Forrestal would be unsafe, being that close to the corner-. He requ6sted-,,,,that staff check with the City Attorney re if the health and safety powers of the City would allow for the -City to remove that access to make a safer intersection. Mr. Mike Nichols, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie, Torrance, addressed the Commission concerning access to the subdivision. He said realigning Palos Verdes Drive South would not give more land to the appli- cant because the underlying fee for the right-of-way was owned by -the Palos Verdes Homes Association. He said that was just another complication in the matter. Mrs. Dorothy Tielens, 3 Wrangler Road, Rolling Hills, owner and applicant, said she had not had a chance to study the new concepts suggested by staff in depth, but was not pleased with them or with the revised plans submitted by Mr. Nichols. She said she would really like the original plan to be considered. She stated that the owner of the corner parcel, Mr.-Mariconi, was held by contract to the original plan only. She did not feel that the alternative was an improvement over the revised plan. In fact, she felt that the access in the revised plan was more straight -forward, and the access in the alternative plan was very complicated. Mr. Jack Jacobs, 3570 Heroic Drive, said the Palos Verdes Drive South Homeowners Association has not had a chance to study the new proposals and wished to withhold comment until their analysis was completed. Mr. McTaggart asked about the possibility of a 33 -foot public street. Mr. Thompson stressed that the alternative designs drawn by staff were conceptual in nature and were only intended to give guidelines and offer different design approaches. Mr. McTaggart said the road was so short that there was little or no need for sidewalks and he wondered if the Street Standards Study for the City allowed for any variation from the standard street design. He felt this situation was an exception. Mr. McTaggart explained to Mrs. Tielens that the maintenance problem was the City's main ob3ection to private roads. He stressed that in many areas private roads have not been maintained and that often the buyers were not aware that the streets were private and would, therefore, not be maintained by the City. Mrs. Tielens said she did not foresee a problem with private streets in this subdivision because maintenance would be minimal since there would be no through traffic and no heavy truck traffic, and also due to the type of person who would be buying in the area. She did not feel that the homeowners would wish to see the small street deteriorate. Mr. Hughes was concerned about the property being adjacent to the Coastal Zone and the Coastal Commission's desires for low- and moderate - income housing. He asked if conditions requiring such housing had been considered for this project. Mr. Weber said that without a formal policy on the matter from the City Council, staff had not tried to incorporate any conditions for low - and moderate -income housing on projects outside the Coastal Zone. He said there has been no direction from Council at this point. Mr. Hughes was concerned about the cracks in the roadway which were developing in the general vicinity of the pro3ect site. He asked Mr. Weber if the articles recently written in the local newspaper were correct and what effect, if any, it would have on the properties in this area. He wondered if a building moratorium was being considered. Mr. Weber said the newspaper article was fairly accurate. He said the City has been monitoring the cracks in the roadway and that Council recently approved a sum of money to be paid to a private geologist to review the situation and do further monitoring. He said it was too soon August 12, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- to have an opinion on whether or not a building moratorium for the area should be established. The Commission was not in favor of a private road concept. Dr. Baer preferred access off of Forrestal Drive because it would require less space and he felt the length of the road should be a consideration. The remaining Commissioners preferred the frontage road access. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like to see the Project developed in total if possible. They hoped that the two property owners would get together and agree on a frontage road access and on a combined project. They suggested that the access issue be discussed with Mr. Ma"ri-coni and that a joint venture be pursued. On motion by Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35799 Mr. Weber said this item had been con - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 56 tinued from the last meeting to allow South of Palos Verdes Drive for investigation of traffic and cTrcu- South at Conqueror Drive lation, further analysis of view, po- Applicant/Landowner: Petrous tential land swap, and disposition of Industries, Inc. Lot #11. Staff discussed traffic and circulation with the Public Works Department and reviewed the Draft Street Standards. Mr. Weber said Public Works' review of the sight distances and right -df -way indicate that the conditions were adequate; however, they recommend that an additional ten - foot strip on the northwest corner of the site be dedicated to the City. He said at this time Palos Verdes Drive functi6ns adequately at all times. He said he did further review of the view potential and determined that, as proposed, there would be no significant view obstruction from either public or private locations. Staff suggested, however, that the Commission consider the concept of lowering the pads on Lots 6 through 9 by about - three feet to lower the profile of the pro3ect and allow for even better views across the site. He said the Sedway Cooke study suggested the possibility of a land swap between this site and the school site which the City now owns. He saidth_6-,princiipals involved reacted negatively to this,propbsa_a-'.l and the City" Attorney advised that the matter, therefore, not be pursued. He said staff hoped to find --a solution to Lot #11 which could become a stepchild and not be maintained. He reviewed the three alternatives as stated in the staff report and said staff recommended that the lot be maintained by the Homeowners Association with strict control through the CC&Rs. He said this alternative did not preclude the Homeowners Association from setting up a community garden. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions in the draft resolution and that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative tract map per the draft - resolution and conditions. He said that the issue of geology was some- thing that staff did consider and noted the condition in the tract map which requires that the final map be approved by the Engineering Geology Section. Mr. Hinchliffe wanted it clearly stated in the record that the Commission was concerned about the geological factor and what has been submitted by the applicant re geology. Mr. Hughes was concerned about who would be responsible for the ground maintenance between the wall and the public right -6f -way. He did not want to have a problem develop such as the one in the Alta Vista area. Mr. Weber said condition #6 of the conditional use permit resolution could be altered to say that the area would be landscaped and maintained with an irrigation system. August 12, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie, Torrance, repre- senting the owner and developer, said that all -of the problems had been resolved and that they were in complete agreement to the conditions of the draft resolution. He requested _that the Commission grant the conditional use permit and recommend approval of the tract map tonight. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Leonard said his client was opposed to a land swap for many reasons: it was a sma,ller'site, not as desirable a site, not on a main highway, etc. Re lowering the pads on Lots 6 through 9, he did not see that it would benefit anyone,`it would be more expensive and require more grading, but -said if required they could do it. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe regarding the geology, Mr. Leonard stated that staff had a letter from Jack Egan, a geologist, stating that the particular area was "grossly stable." Jerry Marani, 4048 Palos Verdes Drive South, spokesman for the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association, again asked the Commission if there was a possibility that the bluff road could be moved east in line with Conqueror Drive. Mr. Hughes pointed out to Mr. Marani that movement of the bluff road as requested was in violation of the City's Local Coastal Plan which states that there would be no development on the seaward side of the bluff road. He said moving the road east would cause development on the seaward side and, therefore, was not feasible. Mr. McTaggart asked staff if lowering the pads on Lots 6 through 9 was a reasonable request of the applicant. Mr. Weber said it was a very reasonable request, that it would be in the best interests of the City if they were lowered. Mr. Hinchliffe was not in favor of lowering the pads. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 80-15, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 56, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" with the following additional condition: that the pads on Lots 6 through 9 be lowered an additional three (3) feet as recommended by staff. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, -Brown NOES: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, recommending to the City Council the adoption of Tentative Tract Map No. 35799, per the draft resolution and attached Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown advised the audience that the Commission's action on the conditional use permit may be appealed to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 29 REVISION Mr. Weber said the applicant was re- Oceancrest & Island View Drives questing a revision to the approved Applicant: Sea Gate lmvestment Co.plans for a 15 -unit condominium lo - Landowner: Omer Tingle cated on Lot 25 of Tentative Tract 33093, which was approved in 1978. The approved plans call -for the 15 August 12, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION -4- units to be included in a two-story structure which essentially divided into three clusters over a subterranean parking garage for 38 cars. He said the approved height of the structure is 28.5 feet. He said the pro- posed revisions utilize the same general footprint of the approved structure; however, the dwelling units sitting over the garage would be changed substantially. He referred to the drawings on the board which showed the approved plans and the revised plans. He said the proposed revisions would stack the units, one on top of another. He said by incorporating the revisions they would gain about 2,300 square feet of open space. He said the plans also called for a substantial change in the architectural treatment to the exterior. He said the most important staff concern was that this violates the section of the Code which states that condominiums shall have no more than one unit in every vertical configuration. However, he said another section of the Code establishes standards for the construc- tion of such units. He said staff discussed this conflict with the City Attorney who advised that if the Commission chooses to allow for the stacked units, that this would be an interpretation pretation of policy that would have to be carried out consistently for every similar application. He said the City Attorney recommended a revision to the Code to eliminate the conflict-' ing sections. Staff felt the primary consideration was the quality of living and the critical issue in terms of stacking units was the noise and vibration that can occur between units. The proposal exceeds the minimum requirements as set up -by the Code for common floor/ceiling assembly. In general, staff felt that the proposed revision results in a better plan and recommends that the Commission grant approval to the revision. Mr. McTaggart said the purpose of the attached unit standards section of the Code was for the conversion of existing structures into condo- miniums, not for the construction of new condominiums. He said the intention was very clear to everyone at the time the ordinance was written, including the City Attorney, and it should not have been written in a manner which permits misinterpretation. He said the whole concept for new construction was to create a single home environment. He felt the Code clearly stated that there shall be no stacking of units in the construction of condominiums. Mr. Hughes said that was also his understanding -of the ordinance. The other Commission members concurred. Ron Chalmers, 7462 N. Figuroa,Kiralv/Chalmers,'-,architects, said the first plan had been done by another firm. He said they were looking at the overall design feasibility of the site as it was laid out on the prior plan. He said they began to d6sign a project that would allow more open space and landscaping, making things more open to provide a single family environment. He felt the revisions made the plan more architecturally attractive to the community and made the units more saleable. Dr. Baer asked Mr. Chalmers if he could redesign the units using the townhouse approach, but still have the open concept desired by the applicant. Mr. Chalmers said that would be impossible. Mr. Hughes felt that the original project design was too dense and wondered if the applicant had considered building fewer units on the site to achieve a more open design. All of the Commission members agreed that the wording in the Code re- garding stacking of units was very clear. They appreciated the fact that the applicant had gone to the expense of having his project redesigned due to a misinterpretation of the Code, but felt the new design was not acceptable. on motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the Commission denied the request for a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 29 based on the fact that the request for vertically stacked units was not in compliance with Section 9123 of the Develop- ment Code. August 12, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Dr. Brown said the decision may be appealed to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 50 Ms. Lavitt said the applicant was pro - 26019 San Nicolas Drive posing to realign the driveway and re- Applicant/Landowner: Pat Deckert locate -thb-driveway apron. She said the existing slope of the front yard was 30 percent and the driveway's existing slope was 25 percent, making it difficult to maneuver. She said the proposal required a four -foot retaining wall and a three-foot railing to be constructed on the front property line. She said the variance was _ required because of the seven -foot higii-wall/rail combination. The request was based on the prohibitive nature of the 25 -percent grade of the driveway and the difficulty to maneuver within that area and the inability to access the garage. She said the four required findings had been met, as shown in the staff report. Staff recommended -approval of the variance and adoption of the draft resolution, thereby approving both the variance and Grading Application No. 439. Mr. Hughes said for the record that the sub3ect property was located directly across the street from his place of residence. Public hearing was opened. Pat Deckert, 28018 San Nicolas Drive, reiterated the difficulties of the situation. He said cars "bottom out" during ingress and egress and he discussed the limited visibility. He said the grade was so steep that it was an unusable situation. Mrs. Deckert said the driveway was very dangerous and was also an attractive nuisance with children's skateboards, skating, etc. Bob DeMoss, 426 W. Carson, designer of the project for the contractor, said the fence situation was a County requirement. He said the existing driveway was totally unusable. He said the gates were being installed for privacy and would open onto the property so as not to be a hazard to pedestrians. He said the lighting was being installed so as to light up the driveway and gate area to enable the applicants to lock the gate at night. The Commission expressed concern about the lighting and the slope of the driveway and indicated that wheel stops would be a good safety investment. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the utility connection lines and their location. Mr. DeMoss felt if there were any problems with the utility lines, he could deal with them in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 80-16, thereby approving Variance No. 50 and Grading No. 439 subject to the conditions thattherebe some device to bumper stop the cars coming off the driveway and that the lighting on the pilasters be eliminated or modified so that there is no off-site illumination. The variance approval was based on the following findings: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances because the owner is denied use of the garage because -6f the existing slope of the driveway, and this is not considered a typical condition. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant because the pro- perty owner is being denied the use of the garage and is compel- led to use on -street parking. C. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or unjurious to property and improvements in the area because the variance would enable the applicant to park his vehicles off the street and in his garage, therefore improving the vehicular circulation on San Nicolas Drive. August 12, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- D. The granting of such a variance is not contrary to the objectives of the General Plan because there are not specific conflicts regarding this project. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown advised the audience that this decision may be appealed to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. STAFF -REPORT Mr. Weber reminded the Commissioners that they were responsible for Trail Standards. He suggested that they call Mr. Thompson so that he could explain what information he had available. He said perhaps he could bring the information to the next meeting. Mr. Weber asked the Commission if they favored the new addition of the Consent Calendar on the agenda. The Commissioners agreed unanimously that the Consent Calendar was a great improvement. Mr. Weber noted that one time had been left off the agenda. Because MS. Bacharach was no longer on the ordinance Subcommittee, they needed a replacement. Mr. McTaggart was nominated to take her place and, there being no other nominees, was unanimously voted to be the new member along with Mr. Hughes. C014MISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown reported on the new proposed Civic -Center Subcommittee meeting last week, Fpns' ti 0. f C youn � 11 er. s ons 1 'r 1 01 1m 1 �lDv _4b B 'aoAc�r"`a a a�Aan� se Hle" indicated that Requests for Proposals for architects had been sent out to nine firms and there had been a bidder's conference last Fridav at which time the project was explained to the prospective bidders. The RFPs are to be returned by the 22nd of August. He said the Civic Center Subcommittee will meet again on August 18, to go over the evaluation sheets and criteria to be used in evaluating the bids and will meet again on September 8, to go over the proposals and select the best ones, with a presentation to the City Council somewhere around the 16th of September. If the time frame is followed, after the architect's design has been accepted, the next step in the process would be to go to the construction drawings and then let the contracts. He said the time line was around November of this year to have the schematics. He said a great deal depends upon the approval of non -approval of Federal funds, which will be a limiting factor as to what other projects can be looked at in the future, those beyond City Hall and Council Chambers, which are the two primary points of interest at this time. He said the meeting for last Saturday with Mayor Hein was delayed until Saturday, August 16. Mr. Hughes asked if there had been any feedback from the Census Bureau. Mr. Weber indicated that the preliminary headcount showed a population of about 37,000, below the 44,000 projected.. He said there were some errors found in the census which were being corrected, but it was definitely felt that the census was -going to be lower due to the decrease in population and the vacancy rate, which in some areas was running quite high. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, themi'nutesof the meeting of July 22, 1980, were approved with the following amendments: page 3, paragraph 7, line 4, "...of that, the applicant would prefer..."; page 3, paragraph 9, line 2, "...requirement August 12, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- needed for parking. The..."; page 3, paragraph 19, line 1, "...that appeals to City Council could be..."; page 5, paragraph 9, "...an obstruction to viewing traffic up..."; page 6, paragraph 11, last sentence, "...standpoint moving the road..."; page 7, paragraphs 5 and 9, change Colvert" and "Colbert" to "Cobert"; and page 8, paragraph 5, line 3, "...manner. The majority felt..." ADJOURNMENT At 11:30 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, August 26, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. August 12, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-