Loading...
PC MINS 19810324Ohl M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 24, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown LATE ARRIVAL: Baer ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson. Dr. Baer arrived at 7:36 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR Dr. Brown removed from the Consent Calendar consideration of the minutes of the meeting of March 10, 1981, to be discussed following New Business. On motion of Dr. Baer, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby granting a six-month time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 7559. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38848 Mr. Weber said this item was last CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 69 heard on February 10, at which time Southwest corner Crest & Crenshaw the applicant and staff were directed Applicant/Landowner: Rutter to provide additional information. Development Company He said based on the information re- ceived from the City Attorney concern- ing condemnation of the corner parcel, staff recommended that the Commission proceed with the proposed map and require an access easement be provided to the Texaco site. Re street design, he said a 'IT" intersection is now proposed, that it has been re- viewed and found to be satisfactory by the Public Works Department. He reviewed the modifications to the access entryways. He said per the Com- mission's direction the applicant revised the walkway/bikeway design, now proposing a minimum eight -foot wide meandering trail with trees. Staff felt the grading plan was acceptable and met the intent of the Code. He said the Geology Section of the County Engineer completed its review and staff has received a letter recommending approval subject to conditions which have been included in the tract map resolution. He referred to the detailed view analysis which was on display and discussed it at great length. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the draft resolution and conditions and further recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative tract map. He referred to the additional conditions recommended by staff and distributed to the Commission this evening. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said the ridgelines would be kept at as low a profile as possible near the public right-of-way. He said the interior homes were proposed to be higher but that they would not fur- ther impair the views. He said the analysis was based on a worst case situation. He said all of the rim lots were proposed at 16 feet but that the applicant was now requesting the option of higher structures with the use of a site line. Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, said they read and agreed to the condi- tions as stated in the draft resolutions but had not yet seen the latest additional conditions. (Mr. Weber handed him a copy.) He said they ac- cepted the ridgelines set by staff. He said their design called for some one-story and some two-story homes, the same type of homes as those at The Ranch. He noted that the two-story homes were narrower than the one-story and would, therefore, open up wider view corridors. He said they did not feel there should be a consistent one-story appearance along the rim. He said each floor plan had three to four elevations, that there were certain lots that each home could go on. He pointed out that there were ridgeline heights established for each lot which could not be exceeded. Mr. Hughes asked with a 5:1 slope how far back the rim homes would have to be to not be seen from below (Palos Verdes Drive South). Mr. Leonard said at a height of 16 feet, homes would have to be 80 feet back. He said they were proposing staggered setbacks. He said they were amenable to treatments such as hip roofs instead of gable in view -impacted areas. He said a higher structure set back further from the rim would be no more impactive and possibly less impactive than a 16 -foot structure built close to the rim. Don Owen, Cayman Development Company, said they have not pre -plotted any of the homes, that they would like to give buyers an option to buy a home of their choice for a lot of their choice. He said they had six basic floor plans with options for differing elevations and roof configurations. He urged the Commissioners to look at The Ranch, which was a 50-50 mix of one and two-story homes. He noted there were specifications saying that a particular home can only be placed on certain lots. He said the ridgelines limit what homes can go where. Re the rim lots, he felt a mixture with a few two-story homes would make a better street scene. He noted that a two- story home has a smaller footprint even though it is 25 percent larger. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was continued. Dr. Brown said perhaps the applicant should prepare a model for the Commis- sion's review as was required for the Burrell tract. Mr. Hughes said unless the Commission was going to require the applicant to firmly place structures on the site, a model would not show anything and would be a waste of time and money. He thought staff's approach was very thorough but wanted to discuss the possibility of moving some of the homes back from the rim. Mr. McTaggart agreed that it was too late in the process for the Commission to ask for a model since the applicant's marketing plan does not include precise locations for homes within the tract. Mr. Leonard said they would like to obtain approval tonight, if possible. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if staff felt comfortable working out a solution for the rim lots with the applicant. Mr. Weber said he would have no problems as long as the direction from the Commission was clear. The direction from the Commission was to not have a wall of homes along the rim, to allow some sort of staggared effect. Mr. Hughes said Conditional Use Permit (CUP) condition #7.f. should be modified to provide for solar access and not permit its blockage by land- scaping. He said the new CUP condition #13 should be modified to read "Prior to the consumation of initial sale of each lot, the buyer shall be apprised ....... 3/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Dr. Baer said CUP condition #10 should be modified to read "'.....without first obtaining approval for a conditional use permit.....'" Mr. McTaggart said CUP condition #10 should be further modified to reflect that no provision for lights has been approved by the Planning Commission, and no conduit or electrical wiring, -etc., shoizld-be-instAlled-without-first obtaining approval for lights. Mr. Weber noted that with the addition of a new CUP condition #13, the existing condition #13 would become #14. Mr. McTaggart said the new Tract Map condition #43 should be modified to read ....... swales should be constructed of earth tone colors (brown, beige, or.....'" Mr. Weber suggested the addition of a new CUP condition #14 to read "Prior to the approval of a final map, a plot plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning which establishes staggered setbacks from the rim." He said with this addition the existing last -condition would become condition #15. Mr. McTaggart suggested modifying CUP condition #11 to be more specific and require that in addition to not permitting solar panels to exceed the maxi- mum ridgeline, they not be permitted to be placed so as to increase any view impairment. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 81-35, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 69, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", as amended this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 38848, subject to the draft resolution and conditions of the attached Exhibit "A", as amended this evening by the Commission. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown advised that the actions by the Commission are appealable to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 74 Mr. Thompson said this request was for VARIANCE NO. 60/GRADING NO. 492 a professional (non-medical) office Northwest corner Crest & Hawthorne building. He reviewed the background Applicant: Neil Stanton Palmer of the project and the proposed revi- Landowner: Universal Trade & Ind. sions. He said the access would be taken from Crest Road. He said the parking ratio had been reduced, thus reducing the size of the parking lot and the amount of grading and eliminat- ing a retaining wall. He said the interior parking plan had been revised and improved. Staff approved of the parking lot circulation as proposed, assuming that the support columns which separated some of the parking spaces were set back a minimum of two and one-half feet from the drive aisle. Staff -recommended approval of the pro3ect subject to the draft reso- lution and conditions. 3/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 0 Public hearing was opened. John Manavian, project designer, Neil Stanton Palmer, said the building was designed to enhance views. He said the signing would probably be at the entrance to the building, but that a sign location was not called out yet. He said they would work within the sign controls of the City. He noted that an integral part of the design was to make the project look like a single family structure. Elizabeth Kramer, 6810 Crest Road, representing the Monte Verde Homeowners Association, expressed concern about the proposed driveway on Crest Road and the excess traffic. She said Crest Road was a long cul-de-sac with over 300 families. She was very concerned about the traffic congestion. She said they had hoped the access for this,site would be off Hawthorne Boulevard instead. She pointed out that no one was aware of who the office holders would be and the hours that traffic would be generated from the site, etc. She did not feel a restriction for "no right turns on a red light", as suggested by staff, would be helpful. Mr. Hinchliffe said there was far more traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard and that it was in the best interests of the public, for safety reasons, to have access to the site off Crest Road instead of Hawthorne Boulevard. Dr. Brown added that the Commission previously spent a great deal of time on the issue of traffic and that Hawthorne Boulevard has a 45 miles per hour speed limit at that point, which would create far greater problems. Mr. J. R. Moss, 6405 Chartres Drive, representing the Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowners Association, expressed concern about the proposed parking which he felt was deficient. He was concerned that people would have to park on Crest Road or in the Hughes Market parking lot. He also expressed concern about the proposed access point and felt it would be a real hazard. Thomas Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, representing the Palos Verdes Monaco Home- owners Association, was concerned about the reduction of the parking re- quirement. He felt a 40 -percent reduction was substantial, that the request was excessive and should be denied. Mr. McTaggart asked staff if the location of the driveway with respect to the Hughes Market driveway was considered to be a hazard. Mr. Thompson said staff felt the best location for access wa.s as proposed. He displayed a photograph showing the relationship of the proposed driveway to Hughes Market. He said there was a critical distance between driveways that must be maintained if they do not line up perfectly. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Thompson said staff surveyed other cities and discovered that the normal parking ratio was one space per 300 square feet. He said Rancho Palos Verdes requires one space per 150 square feet (net leasable), because medical is permitted. He said this project proposed no medical and, therefore, staff felt the proposed parking ratio was not unreasonable. John Manavian said required employee spaces would depend on the usage, that insurance offices required more than a lawyer's office or an accountant's office. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the parking ratio was adequate_ He said there would not be an insurance company because they would need more space. The rest of the Commission agreed the proposed parking was reasonable. Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hughes were uncomfortable with the proximity of the roof to the ground and felt it would be an attractive nuisance which would easily allow children to climb up there. They felt a roof, four and one- half feet off the ground, was too low in an area where there would be public access. 3/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Dr. Brown said he recognized the concern but felt the impacts had been greatly reduced because of the revised design, that the original massive- ness of the structure had been greatly reduced. He also felt the proposed roof pitch would discourage anyone from getting up there. Mr. Hinchliffe and Dr. Baer concurred with Dr. Brown. Mr. McTaggart proposed that the roof be no less than seven feet off the ground at any point to prevent small children from getting up on the roof. Mr. Manavian said there was a lot of street lighting in the area and that it was not a well -traveled or hidden area. He said there was nothing functional about the extension, that it was an architectural projection designed solely for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. P.C. No. 81 -36, -thereby approving Conditional Use No. 60, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Brown NOES: Hughes, McTaggart ABSENT: None Baer, to adopt Resolution Permit No. 74 and Variance Mr. McTaggart stated his negative vote was due to the fact that, in his opinion, this project represented a significant public hazard due to the roof being four and one-half feet off the ground. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mr. Hughes and Mr. McTaggart dissenting, Grading Application No. 492 was approved. Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 10:24 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:32 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12578 Mr. Thompson said this request was to North & east of 26231 Silver Spur create two residential lots and adjust Road (portion Valmonte Canyon) the property line of the lot on which Landowner: Ascension Lutheran the church is situated. He discussed Church the access. Staff felt that no signi- Applicant: South Bay Engineering ficant view obstruction would result if the structures were built 16 feet high. Staff recommended that no devel- opment be permitted on slopes greater than 35 percent extending to the rear property line adjacent to Rolling Ridge Road to preserve the canyon area. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing and take public testimony. It was further recommended by staff that the Commission approve the tentative parcel map subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Thompson said they could not control structures on the parcel map. He said the existing Code permitted a 16 -foot high structure on the site, that anything higher would require a height varia- tion, and that if there was view obstruction the application for a height variation would be denied. He said he understood the church was considering expansion but said that would require a separate application and Planning Commission approval and is not part of this request. Public hearing was opened. 3/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- I * 9 Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering, agreed with the conditions except for condition #7, where he preferred more flexibility. He said it could just specify no development where the slope exceeds 35 percent. He said they preferred a note on the map that each lot represents one building site only, rather than require that the building site be delineated on the map. Dr. Brown asked if access rights have been obtained from Rolling Ridge Road, which was a private street. Mr. McAlpin said no, that they felt if the purchaser of the lot was able to obtain access, he could build on what they felt was the better portion of the lot; if not, he would have to build*on-the other portion. Re condi- tion #13, he said it should be specified for Lot B, that they proposed to maintain access from the frontage road. Darrell Peddy, 25614 Amberleaf Road, Torrance, representing the church, felt the project would enhance the area. He asked how the parkland figure was derived in condition #21. Re condition #22 he felt it should be re- quired of the buyer of the development and not the subdivider. Re condition #24 he said it would cost about $65,000 to improve Silver Spur Road. He said if they were restricted to a particular building site, it may affect the value of the property. William Kelso, 5117 Oconto Avenue, member of the church, said one of the prime locations was the northwest corner of the site. He felt it would be to the advantage of Rolling Ridge Road to get another dues -paying member. He felt conditions V, #13, and #22 were restrictive and felt they should be reworded or delayed at this time. He said condition #24 was like signing a blank check, since no one knew at this time what the costs would be. Edward Valdes, 26325 Silver Spur Road, expressed concern about traffic problems and fire access. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. The Commission had no problem allowing devel- opment at either end of Lot C but opposed development anywhere except the upper end of the canyon on Lot B. The Commission said conditions #22 and #24 were normal conditions placed on all subdivisions. It was further the consensus of the Commission that the landscaping condition was adequate as worded. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolu- tion P.C. No.. 81-37, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 12578, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A" as amended this evening, changing condition #7 to reflect that development of the lower area of Lot C would be permitted (instead of the upper area) if proof of access from Rolling Ridge Road was obtained, and changing condition #13 by adding "for Lot B." Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of March 10, 1981, were approved with the following amendments: page 1, last paragraph, line 2, should read "...Via La Cresta involved the destruction of natural features in the Open Space Hazard zone and the required blasting. He..."; page 3, 5th full paragraph, line 2, should read "...shake shingle next..."; 3/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- page 3, 7th full paragraph, line 5, should read "...pointed out the knoll about..."; page 4, add to paragraph 1, "He also indicated that the 1T�mita- tion of the Open Space Hazard zone be verified and that suitable cross sections be provided with proposed grading for access roads in the upper area."; page 5, add as paragraph 3, "Dr. Baer recommended that a wider design would accomplish the objectives of the development without the limitations of the high building profile."; page 6, add as paragraph 3, "Dr. Brown asked Mr. Boettcher if he was aware of the City's Development Code and knew of its ordinances regarding fences prior to his installation of the fence. Mr. Boettcher repliedthathe was aware of the Fence Ordi- nance and the Develo2ment Code prior to the installation of the fence."; page 6, original paragraph 3, line 2, should read "...proceed with the fence."; and page 6, add as paragraph 6, "Dr. Baer provided information that he recognized that the subject fence was a common design on a western range." STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said the Planning Commission minutes were currently prepared re- flecting the testimony received and the action taken, and briefly summarizing pertinent Commission discussion, unlike the City Council minutes which were strictly "action minutes". He said minutes were not meant to give a verbatim account of the meeting and that obviously every statement could not be included. He requested that the Commission not make changes to the minutes unless something crucial is omitted or is in error. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes reported on the Ordinance Subcommittee's review of the measure- ment of lots fronting on private roads. He said the Subcommittee felt all lots should be treated the same, whether fronting on a private or public right-of-way. Hd said if the City allows the right-of-way easement to be counted in the lot size, they end up with lots smaller than what is required by Code. The Subcommittee further recom- mended that the Glossary be revised, specifically the definition of driveway. He submitted suggested wording. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council changing Section 9611 of the Development Code and the Glossary, as suggested by the Ordinance Subcommittee. Staff was directed to transmit this recommendation to the City Council. Dr. Brown reported that on Thursday, March 12, the Planning Commission chairpersons of the other Peninsula cities met with him at his home. He felt the meeting was worthwhile and said they have scheduled to meet again next month. Mr. Hughes reported on the seminar that he and Mr. McTaggart attended in Irvine on how to become better Planning Commissioners. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would not be able to attend the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 11:46 p.m. it was moved, seconded and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, April 14, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 3/24/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-