Loading...
PC MINS 19801028i � M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 28, 1980 lqy The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber and Associate Planner Richard Thompson. CONSENT CALENDAR on motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved, thereby ap- proving the minutes of the meetings of September 30, 1980 and October 14, 1980, as submitted. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39672 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 71 Commission reviewed the alternative South of Seacove Drive subdivision designs, view analysis, Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan and and park site study, and directed that Tumanjan Investments, Inc. the map be revised to maintain an existing bluff trail in the form of an easement, that the park be located in the central position, and that setbacks, grading or other acceptable method be proposed to minimize view obstruction from adjacent properties. He said the revised map shows enlargement of the proposed dedicated vista park to include the bluff face, a proposed 25 -foot easement for open space preserva- tion with public access that runs adjacent to the bluff top, and a minimum structure setback line of 50 feet in the front. He said the total area of the park is now 4.7 acres, of which 1.6 acres is usable flat area. He said if the City Council is unable or unwilling to accept dedication of the pro- posed vista park, the matter would have to be brought back to the Commission for review. He said the proposed public access easement runs the entire length of the bluff and is intersected by the vista park which will provide primary access to the bluff easement. He said per the Commission's request staff contacted the City Attorney re liability and that the City Attorney noted that both the property owner and City could be found liable with such an easement and that an unimproved area is safer from a liability stand- point because it is used as is and there is no expectation of it being main- tained perfectly safe all the time. Concerning view, he said staff looked at four different alternatives and he referred to the chart in the staff report which identifies ridgeline heights for each method. He said alterna- tive #1 measures the 16 feet from the average elevation of the property line abutting the street of access to the ridgeline or the highest point of the structure which is consistent with the Code for these type lots; alternative #2 measures from the average elevation of the normal front setback line (20 feet); alternative #3 measures from the average elevation at the proposed 50 -foot front setback line; and alternative #4 measures the height from the highest point on the lot covered by the structure. He reviewed the sketches which were on display and said staff felt alternative #3 was a reasonable approach, providing some relief to the adjacent properties as well as flexi- bility in design to the applicant. Staff recommended that the Commission grant approval to 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 subject to the conditions of the draft Council resolution. He proposed changing the wording in condition #23 of the tract map resolution by removing the words "but not limited to" and specifically listing everything, and also making condition #24 of that reso- lution more specific. Dr. Brown noted that the public hearings had been closed but asked if the applicant had any comments. Peter Delgado, Tumanjan and Tumanjan Investments, Inc., 22939 Hawthorne Bouelvard, Torrance, said he had reviewed all of the conditions and con- curred with them, including staff's proposed changes to conditions #23 and #24. He said he still preferred the easement from a marketing standpoint. He said either alternative #3 or #4 would be acceptable. Mr. Hughes said condition #23 calls for an improvement plan but he was con- cerned that there was nothing which required that the improvements physi- cally be made to the site. Mr. Weber said the intent of condition #24 is that a bond be posted to in- sure that the improvements are made per plan. He said the condition could be strengthened by stating that the -developer shall make those -improvements. Mr. McTaggart asked what type of bluff safety barrier was envisioned, as referred to in condition #23. Mr. Weber said the intention was not to keep people from standing right next to the bluff, but rather to provide a series of rocks or some type of landscaping which would prevent cars from going off. Dr. Baer said he was comfortable with the staff recommendation and the view analysis and the conditions and changes proposed by staff. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would opt for alternative #3 because it offers more flexibility to the developer. He was not sure that it was appropriate to require the developer to improve the vista park, which would be a public park. Dr. Brown said he was comfortable with the staff recommendations. He noted that the area to be dedicated could be a fire hazard if left unimproved in its natural state. Mr. McTaggart agreed that it was in the best interest of everyone that the park be improved and felt it would take much longer if left to the City to improve. Mr. Hughes said the developer will not have to build a bluff road as other bluff developers will. He felt improvement of the park site was the mini- mum the City should expect of this developer. He said he was comfortable with either alternative #3 or #4. He said conditions #25 and #26 of the tract map resolution allow for change with what appears to be only staff approval. He felt any changes should be reviewed by the Commission. He said they have made an important step in securing for the City a unique public area and he did not want to see access taken away by future encroach- ments. He felt any changes in those areas would be significant and should, therefore, require a change to the conditional use permit. He said he would like to insure that the buyers of the properties are made adequately aware of the conditions placed on them in terms of height limitations, setbacks, etc., and requested a condition to that effect be added. Mr. Weber suggested changing condition #25 to require City Council approval because the Commission would not have jurisdiction over the easement, and changing condition #26 to require Planning Commission approval. In terms of the view analysis, it was the consensus of the Commission that alternative #3 was acceptable. 10/28/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- 0— Dr. Brown was in favor of Mr. Hughes' conditions of this project by placing report which is signed by the buyers. • suggestion to advise buyers of the a statement in the final subdivision Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Reso- lution P.C. No. 80-21, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 71 sub- ject to the conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to a Commission question, Mr. Weber said alternative #3 was spelled out in condition #3.C. of the conditional use permit resolution. He proposed the following change to that condition to read "...elevation of the minimum front structure setback line..." Mr. Hughes proposed modifying conditions #3.A. and #3.B. of the conditional use permit resolution to conform with the proposed changes to conditions #25 and #26 of the tract map resolution. The Commission discussed further word changes to condition #3.A. of the conditional use permit resolution concerning the type of development that would be permitted. It was suggested that there be no development other than landscaping permitted seaward of the coastal setback line. Mr. Weber asked about fences in that area. Mr. McTaggart suggested they limit it to fencing that could be approved in the front setback. He said they could permit the maximum which would be allowed by current Code in the front setback under a minor exception permit without going through the normal minor exception permit process. Dr. Brown explained that would mean a maximum six-foot high fence which allows 90 percent light and air. Mr. Weber said if the current fence ordinance changes it could present a lot of problems. He requested that the Commission be more specific and spell out precisely what would be allowed. I Mr. McTaggart said if the condition stated that this condition pertained to the fence ordinance as of this date there should be no problem. Dr. Brown suggested that the condition state that the landscaping plan shall include fencing up to six feet in height which allows for 90 percent light and air. Mr. McTaggart felt the City should include cleaning the easement in its park budget. He said the City would be maintaining the park anyway and should also maintain the public access easement. He did not propose a con- dition to that effect, but strongly suggested that the City take on that burden and not leave the homeowners responsible for cleaning up after the public. Mr. Hinchliffe and Mr. McTaggart agreed to amend the motion to include all of the above discussed modifications to conditions #3.A., 3.B., and 3.C. I Roll call vote on the motion was as follows: I AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 39672 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the draft Council resolution, with the above discussed amendments to conditions 23, 24, 25, and 26. Mr. Weber said the motion should also include the incorporation of condi- tion #38 which requires a statement in the final subdivision report to be 10/28/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- signed by the buyers adequately advising them of the conditions of approval, as suggested by Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hinchliffe said the subdivision report makes reference to the CC&Rs and asked if they would contain any reference to the conditions. Mr. Hughes asked about the proposed ten -foot easement on the west side of the site. Mr. Weber said they were proposing storm drain easements on both sides of the site. Roll call vote on the above motion, as amended, was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39673 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 58 Commission reviewed the staff's view Southwest of Beachview & Coastsite analysis, the Public Works' memo re Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan and streets, and miscellaneous minor is- Tumanjan Investments, Inc. sues. He said the applicant was di- rected to revise the site/grading plan to minimize view obstruction, and that the Commission also directed that the internal street system be designed and designated as public streets. He said revised plans show that the structures immediately adjacent to Beachview and Coastsite (structures 1 thru 6, 14, 15, and 27) have been reduced in height from one to six feet. He said this was accomplished by additional grading (mostly cut), the use of more retaining walls, and some minor shifting of at least three struc- tures. He said in addition, the plans have been revised showing public streets and rights-of-way as recommended by the Public Works Department. He said the textured streets and landscaped medians have been retained and will require conditions to insure long term maintenance by the homeowners. Re view obstruction, he said staff has taken additional photographs which were on display and he referred to the chart in the staff report comparing the alternatives. He discussed those alternatives and said the units of the Cal Wah project would be the most impacted, but that almost anything would block their views. He reviewed the view analysis and photographs which were on display. Staff felt that the revised plan substantially improved the views and visual character of the development site; however, it was recommended that a maximum roof pitch of 22:12 be required to fur- ther reduce the impact of the proposed structures. Staff recommended that the Commission grant approval to the conditional use permit subject to the conditions of the draft resolution and that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative tract map subject to the Council draft resolution and conditions. Dr. Brown noted that the public hearings were closed but asked if the appli- cant had any comments. Peter Delgado, Tumanjan and Tumanjan Investments, Inc., Torrance, said he has reviewed all the conditions with staff and concurred with them, includ- ing the 22:12 roof pitch change. Mr. Weber proposed changing condition #23.b. of the tract map resolution by either eliminating it or requiring that stubs be installed for future street lighting. He said the Council has eliminated the condition for street lights in the past. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Weber said lowering the roof pitch means about one and one-half feet. He felt it could be critical in some areas, particularly with structures 1 thru 6, 14, 15, and 27, and that the change would benefit the project. 10/28/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned that the roof pitch change would restrict the types of roofing materials and felt the roofscape was very important with this project. He said tile was one of the more attractive types but the applicant might not be able to use it. Mr. Weber said that the roofs would require special construction, but that it could be done at some additional cost. It was the consensus of the Commission that the roof pitch be changed per staff's recommendation on the perimeter lots J 1)0L-tU_(off I41 Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 80-22, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 58 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said the City Council elimi- nated the condition for street lights in the past, including the Cal Wah project. He suggested changing condition #23.b. of the tract map resolution to require stubs for future street lighting. Mr. McTaggart felt there should be street lights, particularly at intersec- tions. Mr. Hughes felt street lights did more to interrupt views than anything else. He felt the condition should be removed. Mr. Weber noted that the proposed Street Standards Study has a light design that does not allow for any light except on the street surface itself. Dr. Baer agreed to stubbing. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed there probably should be no street lights to be con- sistent with the Cal Wah pr03ect, but that stubbing would be fine. Dr. Brown agreed with stubbing. It was the consensus of the Commission to change condition #23.b. to require stubbing for future street lighting. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 39673 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A" of the draft Council resolution, with the above - discussed amendment to condition #23.b. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the order of the agenda was changed by interchanging Old Business item C. with New Business item A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 60 Mr. Thompson said the conditional use VARIANCE NO. 48 permit request was for the construction North side of Silver Spur Road at of an office building with associated Crossfield Drive on-site parking and the variance re- Landowner/Applicant: Ray Quigley, quest was for a parking ratio of one Matt Bruning, Jerry Moss space per 250 square feet of leasable 10/28/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- area in lieu of the Code required one space per 150 square feet. He said the project proposed a 62,500 square foot non-medical office building com- plex and on-site parking on a 16 -acre vacant hillside parcel. He said six buildings, each two stories high, were proposed to front Silver Spur Road with a total of 250 parking spaces to be located behind four of the build- ings and under two of them. He said only six of the 16 acres were proposed to be graded and developed and that the remaining ten acres were steep slopes which would act as a buffer between the strip commercial uses front- ing Silver Spur Road and the residences located above and behind them. He said a condition of approval should restrict any further development to occur on those ten acres. He discussed the structure heights, saying that the applicant has indicated that the maximum height proposed would not ex- ceed 30 feet. He reviewed the proposed grading and said staff felt alterna- tive designs should be considered which would reduce the slopes to a more reasonable ratio. Staff also felt that the 10 -foot retaining wall separat- ing the parking area should be reduced to a more reasonable height. He dis- cussed the traffic and circulation and said staff was of the opinion that the proposed driveway located at the western end of the project should be eliminated. He said the traffic consultants felt that no adverse effect would result if that driveway was eliminated. Mr. Hughes asked about the proposed traffic patterns. Mr. Thompson said the internal circulation should be worked out. He said it was important that the access to the site provide a minimal slope for traffic and safety reasons. He said the developer wants to keep the drive- ways as low as possible which requires additional grading. He said the amount of office space dictates the amount of parking required and that if the office space was reduced the amount of parking could be reduced further. He reviewed the plans and photographs on display and said in general staff supported the concept but believed that the project was too intense and re- quired a great deal of grading. Staff felt grading could be reduced if the amount of office space was reduced. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing and discuss the issues of design concept, site grading, geology, traffic and circulation, and the parking variance; that the Commission direct the applicant to redesign the project pursuant to staff recommendations and continue it to a future date. He noted that at 4:30 this afternoon comments were received from the City of Rolling Hills Estates indicating several concerns. He said staff did not have adequate time to respond to those concerns but after doing so would give a copy of the letter and staff's response to the Commission. He said among other concerns the letter indicated that they were not notified of the Negative Declaration. He said the file indicates they had been notified. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Thompson said the current parking standards were very restrictive, that most cities require one space per 300 square feet of leasable area. He said a variance was recently granted at the corner of Silver Spur Road and Silver Spur frontage road for the same ratio as is requested. He said the reduced parking spaces would decrease the grading required for the site. Public hearing was opened. Matt Bruning, 727 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, said except for some recent developments, the existing Peninsula Center has a ratio of 400 square feet per each parking space, and that the City of Rolling Hills Es- tates now requires one space for every 300 square feet. He said the cuts and retaining walls as shown would not create a geological hazard. He said the letters from Mr. Keene, County Geologist, have been responded to. He said 10 -foot walls would be maximum, as if they were higher more cut would be required. He said they proposed 65 -foot double barrell parking. Dr. Baer asked if there was any way to build without grading right up to the backs of the residences and asked if the green area could be extended there as a buffer. 10/28/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Bruning said the only way would be to cut the project in half. He said they investigated subterranean parking and that maneuvering from the road- way into the property becomes very difficult. He said if they went with a width of 65 feet below the street level for parking, at the back of that 65 -foot double barrell land there would be a retaining wall approximately 40 feet in height. He said the major problem in providing subterranean parking is having to keep the overall development heights at 30 feet. Robert Dyer, 5245 Sunnypoint Place, abutting the project area on the north side of the project, asked about evidence of instability in the strata. He said the whole area is natural and his concern was that if the adjacent land was unstable what evidence is there to assure that the strata of the project area is stable. Re the buffer zone, he felt the same consideration should be shown to the residences near the project area. Ray Quigley, project engineer, South Bay Engineering, 304 Tejon Place, Palos Verdes Estates, said they have several reports from the geologist and that the last one had not yet been reviewed by the County Engineer. Mr. McTaggart asked about the line drawn which separates the area with no problem from the area with a problem. Mr. Quigley said what makes a piece of land unstable are the bedding planes underneath. He said if they dip down from the hill it is a potential land- slide, but if they dip up from the hill there is no problem. Mr. McTaggart said when construction was proposed on the other site (adja- cent) it was proposed to be buttressed. He said they were now proposing to leave a portion of the site (shown on the site plan as wooded park) as is. He said he would rather see a project come in which maintains continu- ity of the land, and includes corrective grading for the entire project area. Mr. Quigley said they could extend the buttress into this area. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hinchliffe felt there should be some alternatives for parking and sug- gested subterranean parking. He said he had no problem with the requested parking ratio and felt it was a reasonable request. Mr. Hughes felt there should be adequate buffering. Re parking he said they do not really know what the site will have in terms of tenants or what the structures will look like. He felt perhaps there were some other alternatives in terms of underground parking which would require less de- velopment of the site. He felt anything that could be done to maximize buffering between the uphill existing developments and this development would benefit the community. Mr. McTaggart agreed they should maximize the buffering and increase the safety by buttressing the area. He felt subterranean parking would allow for a better layout of the buildings, perhaps more usable area. He was concerned that the project looked so intense. Dr. Baer concurred with maintaining the natural ungraded area and felt that looking at other options for parking would be beneficial. Dr. Brown summarized that the Commission was requesting alternative designs which would improve the buffering aspect and reduce the grading and the slopes of 12:1. He felt that Mr. Hinchliffe's suggestion for subterranean parking should be explored. He said there was concern about geology and that stablization by buttressing all across the project area should be ex- plored. Re parking requirements, the consensus was that the proposed ratio was acceptable. He said circulation and traffic issues need to be looked at. He said there was concern with the visibility problem. He advised the 10/28/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- audience that the public hearing had been continued and that there would be no further notice so anyone interested should check with staff re when this item will be coming back to the Commission. Mr. Bruning asked the feeling of the Commission if in meeting the above con- cerns the project would exceed 30 feet. It was the consensus of the Commission that the height issue could be handled under the variance and would probably be no problem if it was reasonable and if there were trade-offs which solved some of the other problems discussed. RECESS At 10:37 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:46 p.m. with the same members present. VARIANCE NO. 52 Mr. Weber said this item had been con - 28710 Atford Drive tinued to allow for a decision on the Applicant: Bill Lusby, A.I.A. height variation, as an appeal was ex - Landowner: Renato Curto pected. He said a decision of approval was made on the height variation and an appeal of that decision was not received. As the appeal period had expired, the variance request is back on the agenda and staff recommended its approval. The Commission discussed different wording for finding B. to make it more clear. Mr. McTaggart asked if the roof line changes had been made. Mr. Weber said revised plans have not been submitted. On motion of Mr. Huqhes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolu- tion P.C. No. 80-23, thereby approving Variance No. 52 subject to the con- ditions of Exhibit "A" with the following amendment to the last sentence of Section 2 of that resolution: "Due to the location of the existing structure on the lot, the applicant..." Mr. McTaggart requested staff to see that the roof t s re -oriented (per discussion at the last meeting) as a condition of approval. Mr. Hinchliffe and Mr. Hughes agreed to amend the motion to reflect that as a condition. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown noted that there was a fifteen calendar day appeal period. SEDWAY/COOKE STUDY Mr. Weber said it was requested that the Commission -recommend to the City Council approval of the Study. He said there were graphics available if there was anything that the Commission wanted to look at, and that he would answer any questions. He said he would draft a memo from the Commission to the Council stating the action taken this evening. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously car- ried, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Sedway/ Cooke Study. 10/28/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- Mr. Hinchliffe said he hoped the Study would help save some of the agricul- tural land near Portuguese Bend. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber referred to the memo sent to the Commission concerning the pro- posed Planning Commission and staff dinner and he requested that the Commission choose a date so that staff could make the necessary arrangements. The dates suggested in the memo were unacceptable to the Commission due to various individual conflicts. The Commission agreed upon the evening of Thursday, November 20. Mr. Weber said if there was any problem with that date, he would report back to them at the next meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes asked staff to investigate a sign violation at the home of his neighbor across the street. Cities _f� Dr. Baer said he attended the League 6f -California Ci ies Con efe nce nday, through Tuesday in Los Angeles and felt it was very educational. He said there was one session on affordable housing legislation which was very interesting. At 11:15 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, November 11, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 10/28/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9-