Loading...
PC MINS 198102109 • M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting February 10, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby ap- proving the minutes of the meeting of January 27, 1981, as submitted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 60 Mr. Thompson said this item was con - VARIANCE NO. 48 tinued from the last meeting at which North side of Silver Spur Road time the Commission expressed a con - at Crossfield Road sensus of approval for the project Landowners/Applicants: R. Quigley, subject to review of the height M. Bruning, J. Moss (Devco) variance, construction phasing and detailed plans. He said there had been a significant reduction of the square footage of net leasable area. He said public notification was done for the height variance. He said the detailed plans submitted by the applicant showed that building heights generally do not exceed 30 feet as measured from the existing grade. Staff felt that the height variance was justified because, although consolidating the buildings together has caused the height to exceed the Code limitations, it decreases the limits of grading, thereby preserving more open space,and increases the distance between the residential uses and the proposed commercial development. He maid the applicant was requesting that the Commission permit the proposed development to be constructed in four phases, that the first phase called for grading the entire site, construction of retaining walls, landscaping the entire site, and construction of one of the financial buildings with associated on-site parking. Staff was of the opinion that the applicant has met the concerns raised and, therefore, recommends approval of the phasing plan. He said the City Attorney recommended an additional condition re main- taining the hillside and repairing any damage. He said he also discussed with the City Attorney the problem of liability in case a slide should occur. He said the City Attorney did not foresee a problem with liability if buildngs are not proposed in the area of concern and, therefore, did not feel that a condition should be imposed for a hold harmless agreement. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing for the height variance, take public testimony, and approve the project per the draft resolution and attached conditions, with the addition of condition no. 21 re maintaining the hillside and repairing any damage, as suggested by the City Attorney. Public hearing was opened. Jim Payne, 27539 Longhill Drive, said his main concern was potential erosion as a result of this project. He was also concerned that the granting of a height variance for this project would set a precedence for the whole area along Silver Spur Road. Dr. Brown said the Commission had spent considerable time onthe geology issue, that the minutes would reflect it wasthoroughlyexamined at the last meeting. He said the Commission would not &e setting a precedence by action on this particular parcel. He said the stability ,- of the slope, a wide buffer area, adequate parking for the facility, - and open area were important considerations of the Commission. He noted that the project originally was proposed to be much larger. Mr. McTaggart explained that the Commission required a lot of parking to be buried, thus providing a larger setback between the building site and the existing homes. He said putting the parking underneath made the building higher, as measured per the Code. Mr. Payne said the residents already suffer noise problems from air conditioning etc., of existing structures in the Peninsula Center, and he felt building these structures so close to the residences, allowing them to be higher, and permitting night-time business "--would cause a significant loss of privacy, obstruction of views, and severe noise pollution. He suggested reducing the number of buildings rather than undergrounding the parking. Mr. McTaggart explained that the scope of the project had been reduced considerably. He said the buildifiqs, would not be going up the slope as they could have, which would have made the buildings much higher -to the residences. He said the major issues on this project were safety and traffic. He said the Commission encouraged the variance because of its reluctance to let the project be built up the hill close to the residences. He said because the parking is underneath, technically the building is 45 feet high as measured by Code, but it is only 30 feet high as measured from existing grade. Mr. Payne said his home would not have view obstruction but that his neighbors would. He said he appreciated the fact that -the overall project had been reduced but felt the buildings could be reduced even further. In response to a request by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson demonstrated on the plans the difference between the original proposal, the current proposal, and what could be allowed by Code. Mr Payne questioned the intent of the Code as it relates to this property. He said the Code appeared very reasonable for a flat area. He felt this was a unique situation. Mr. Hughes said hillside lots were not uniqueonthe Peninsula. He said this City has the most restrictions of any community in the area for any zone. Sigrid Payne, 27539 Longhill Drive, told of a homeowner down the hill with a patio that recently sank down. She wondered who assumed liability for land slippage. She said the City was concerned with the hillside and that it stood to reason if the hillside had a problem the homeowners would also have a problem. She was concerned with noise pollution. She said the Peninsula was not the same any more and was upset that this big building would be permitted in her back yard. Bob Dyer, 5245 Sunny Point Place, expressed concerns about the distance between the proposed cut and his property line, the angle of the slope and the proximity of the grade. He also wondered who would assume liability when his pool cracks. He said his pool has been there for 16 years and if it cracked foll6wing grading of this project, he felt it was safe to assume that it,,was the result of the grading. Mr. Weber said it was impossible to pre -determine who would be responsible for future problems. 2/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Dyer requested that the color of the roofs be pleasing to look at. He also noted that he had a solar system and was concerned about the height of any proposed landscaping. Matt Bruning, 727 Silver Spur Road, said the subject site was the same size as that of the Hahn project. He said his original proposal was less than one-sixth and the current proposal was less than one-seventh the size of the Hahn project. He said the difference between the top of the roof and the Payne house was 60 feet, and that it was 20 feet below the Dyer house. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Baer felt that the landscaping concern was covered by the condition requiring approval by the Director of Planning. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 81-32, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 60 and Variance No. 48, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", with the following additional condition: "21. That the owner agree to maintain the hillside in a safe and proper manner and repair any damage to the hillside in a timely manner in accordance with an approved grading plan." Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown noted that this action was appealable to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 8:42 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38848 Mr. Weber said this item was first CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 69 heard on January 13 at which time the Southwest corner Crest & Crenshaw environmental impact report (EIR) was Applicant/Landowner: Rutter finalized. He said a number of issues Development Corp. evolved during the public hearing and subsequent discussion. Re streets/ circulation, he said in summary the Traffic Committee felt the Crest Road access should be secondary and should be an emergency access only. He said requested information concerning the Whitley Collins street vacation was attached to the staff report. Re street width it was recommended that the Commission approve a 34 -foot wide street with a 46 -foot right-of-way. He said the pr03ect engineer has stated his intention to redesign the knuckle to satisfy the Public Works Department. He discussed the proposed trails network and said, in general, staff felt the proposed walkways and bikeways were adequate and would meet the intent of the concept outlined in the General Plan. Staff, therefore, recommended approval in concept of the proposed trails network. Re grading, he said there was an attempt to reduce the grading by putting excess fill in the tennis court area, making the level of the tennis court about 15 feet higher than originally proposed. Due to the impacted nature of this area staff had no major concerns with the fill or created slopes but would want the site to remain as natural in appearance as possible. He referred to a letter received tonight from the applicant concerning his attempts to purchase the corner parcel. He said the applicant has indicated he would offer an easement for access to that parcel. Due to the weather staff had not been able to do a complete -View analysis,-but_-I`ne_sald' it'was indicated that there would be some public view obstruction. He said he had not yet analyzed private views. Staff recommended that the Commission continue the public hearing, review the issues discussed in this report, and give direction. Dr. Brown asked if a signalized intersection would make access to the corner parcel more of a safety hazard. Mr. Weber said it would be more of a hazard but he was not sure how significant the impact would be. 2/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. Hinchliffe said he was concerned about the future use of the corner parcel and the amount of proposed grading. Mr. Weber said the alternative was to truck the dirt out. He said the grading would create a flat area where it now slopes on an average of 20 to 30 percent. He said the applicant was proposingtouse fill to build up a water course. He said it was a trade-off which -had some merit. He said all of the views are east or west of the knoll and that if the knoll is left as is and a house is built -on it, it would not hurt the public view but would substantially obstruct some of the private views. Re archaeology, he said the final report is part of the file and indicated there were no artifcActs on the site, other than what has already been removed. However, he noted that one of the mitigation measures requires an observant to be present and that if anything is found the grading shall be stopped. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie Avenue, Torrance, said they would go either way re the access points and the street. He said they have worked with the knuckle and would make it a T -intersection with a short cul-de-sac off of the knuckle. Re grading he said they did have the desire to fill in the canyon which would make it a very usable site, a recreational amenity. Re the corner parcel he said they would provide a driveway easement. Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff Drive, discussed the Traffic Committee issues. He said the 36 -foot street width was recommended for turning radius in and out of driveways and to accommodate emergency vehicles. He said at this time the Committee recommends Crest as emergency access - only. He said with all the new development they expect Crest Road to be something of a release valve to avoid the congested streets. He said it was much easier to start out with emergency access only and if it proves at a later date to not be so, it could be relieved. He further recommended that the bike path be reduced from 12 feet to 8 feet to avoid the problem of it being used for motor vehicles. He felt it was reasonable to expect that the homeowners would want to screen off the light and noise, and he requested that there be some means of consistency. Mr. Hughes asked what was proposed to make the Crest access secondary. Mr. Mathys said he would not propose changing the design, just gating it off. He felt a closed gate would discourage anyone from using it. Mr. McTaggart disagreed with blocking off the access as he felt it would create problems with people parking there to use the area as a lovers' lankd or a drug drop. Jim Juneau, 5656 Crest Road, lease holder of the service station on the corner, did not feel that the additional homes or the Peninsula Center development would significantly increase the traffic on Crest Road. He felt the gate would present problems for the homeowners. He felt a more logical solution to the situation was to open the access now and gate it later if there is a problem. He said obviously his business would be better if he had direct access from the tract. Mr. Hinchliffe asked what current market value of the site was. Don Owen, Cayman Development, said the asking price -was $325,000 a couple of years ago. He felt current market value was a maximum $125,000, but said they were willing to pay more. The Commission was in favor of a 36 -foot street width and the idea of a T -intersection at the knuckle. It was the consensus of the Commission (with Dr. Brown opposed) to permit regular access at Crest Road rather than restricting it to emergency access only. Mr. McTaggart asked about the trail which is sandwiched between two lots and leads to an access point. 2/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. Leonard said they did not intend to make it a large vista area, just to let people walk up there, see the view, and leave. Mr. Hinchliffe questioned the value of the walkway under those conditions. He said it did not make sense to hide the walkway and that rather than do that it should be eliminated. Mr. Hughes expressed the same concern as Mr. Hinchliffe. He said the applicant was proposing an easement through there that would be hidden and obscured. He said they should provide reasonable access with minimal disruption to the residents. He said this was a long easement proposed between the two largest pads. Mr. Hinchliffe asked the City's view on a vista point of this kind. Mr. Weber said -it was identified in the General Plan as being a vista point. He said the whole idea was to provide for views with an informal trail. In response to further questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said people could get the same view from the Nike site. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the trail should be eliminated. Dr. Brown agreed. Mr. Hughes disagreed. He said the trail exists now and it would be difficult to cover.- it up. He said -there -was"In-othini-g with lea--v-in4 t wrong w the trail as it - exists. Mr. Weber said there would be pla7ces.in that trail that will be covered by the grading. Dr. Brown said if the grading disrupts the trail that it should be repaired. It was the consensus of the Commission that the existing - trail should be maintained as is, but not improved. Re grading, Mr. McTaggart felt a 20 percent reduction was reasonable.- He felt making the canyon somewhat usable was more attractive than keeping it completely natural. Mr. Weber illustrated how the lots could be accommodated with some grading but that it was not necessary to fill in the whole canyon. He said the Commission would get a better feeling of the grading after he completed the view analysis. Re the corner parcel access easement, Mr. Hughes felt the City Attorney should be asked about the possiblity of taking action in condemnation procedures, as suggested by Mr. Hinchliffe. It was the consensus of the Commission that the City Council should be approached with some sort of proceedings and that if nothing worked the Commission would agree tothe easement. Mr. Weber said the hydrology issue was still being worked out. Dr. Brown said he agreed with the suggestion for consistency with rear yard screening along Crest Road, some sort of uniformity. Mr. Hughes concurred as long as there was a condition requiring maintenance of the wall. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about the bike path width at 8 feet instead to 12 feet. Mr. McTaggart discussed the meandering bike path on Highridge with shrubbery and trees in it. He thought that type of treatment was an excellent idea. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Weber said there was not an equestrian tkail along Presely, that it was a bike trail. Mr. Owen said there were no horses at the Ranch. 2/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mr. Hughes suggested that there notice that there are a series this development so it does not be a plan for putting potential buyers on of public trails and easements associated with come as a surprise to anyone later. The public hearing was continued. ,STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber confirmed the meeting date for the Commission's work session as Tuesday, February 17, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. He said he checked the City Council calendar and there were no planning items scheduled for that Council meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown said the chairpeople met with the Mayor on Saturday. He said they discussed Klondike Canyon, the department head staff retreat with the City Manager scheduled for the end•of the month, and communications between committees and staff. He said apparently there was an accident chart devised for Palos Verdes Drive East and that one would be done for Z the whole City for quick accident reference. He said Miraleste Hills was collecting signatures to seek complete street vacation. He said the Parks and Recreation Department was directed to look for private enterprise to lease space on public property, and that one proposal is for a paddle tennis facility. He.said the Parks and Recreation Committee was to meet with the Rolling Hills Estates Parks and Recreation Commission. He said the City was trying for a grant from the Coastal Conservancy for Pt. Vicente Park. He said they discussed the annexation, the mist cage, the water coming off Presley tract into Altamira Canyon, possible Ladera Linda site exhange, the letter written by Elaine Fitz concerning the appeal of the Ocean Terrace environmental assessment which was denied by the Council, and money coming to the City under Proposition 1. He said 'the latest on the civic center is that an architect was looking at doing something with the existing structures. Mr. Hughes asked about the Watabe antenna and if they have complied with the Commission's decision. Mr. Hughes also asked if there was a City ordinance to control the parking of semi -trailers on residential streets. He said his neighbor has parked one across the street from his driveway, that it contains construction materials. He was concerned that it would be there for a long time. Dr. Brown said Bob Gibson mentioned at the Mayor's meeting about a pool being put in on Menominee and that bulldozers were going through the canyon to get to the Dr. Brown said the biggest portion of the last Council meeting was dealing with geology and that the Council placed a moratorium on the Seaview area. He said the Moore and Taber report should be in by now and may adjust the boundary lined. Mr. Hughes asked what would be done about the testimony received tonight about an active landslide. Mr. Weber said staff would call and find out the owner of the patio which is falling and would check it out. ADJOURNMENT At 11:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, February 17, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 2/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-