Loading...
PC MINS 19810420M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting April 20, 1981 •The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: Hinchliffe Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimoulsy passed, thereby ap- proving: A) the minutes of the meeting of March 24, 1981; B) the minutes of the meeting of April 14, 1981; and C) Grading Application No. 445. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37818 Mr. Thompson said this item was last CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 59 heard on March 10 and that the appli- North & east of Hawthorne Blvd. cant was now requesting approval of a between Via Rivera & Via La Cresta revised project concept with 10 units Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties proposed for the upper portion of the Applicant: Sikand Engineering site and 13 units proposed for the lower Portion. Staff was generally pleased with the visual character and traffic circulation of the lower project and its compatibility to surround- ing development. He reviewed the proposed upper project and said the re- vised plan would be less visible and is generally consistent with the major criteria. He reviewed the proposed grading, traffic information, visual impact and view analysis. He said the staff report responded to the con- cerns raised in the letters received by staff. He said the central question was whether to permit an attached townhouse development with a common recrea- tion area clustered in one area, or permit a single family development spread over a larger area. Staff recommended that the Commission consider the in- formation contained in the staff report and decide whether to permit develop- ment on the upper portion of the property. Dr. Brown noted this was a continued public hearing. Bernard Nelson, 30856 Via La Cresta, expressed concerns about view obstruc- tion. He was further concerned about the revised plan which places one of the proposed homes substantially closer to his property. Mr. Yarymovych, 6947 Vallon Drive, was concerned about future landscaping and trees. He was also concerned about the method of construction proposed and the rock formation which he felt quite possibly would require blasting. He wondered what relationship this would have on the stability of the area. Dr. Brown said one of the conditions requires that a landscape plan be ap- proved by the City. He said the staff report suggested one of the conditions specifically disallow any form of blasting of the site. - Mr. Thompson said as the project is now proposed there would be no view ob- struction to Mr. Yarymovych. George Poirier, 30855 Via La Cresta, expressed concern about view obstruc- tion and blasting. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, said they proposed patio homes separated by common area. He said the 23 sites and streets would occupy about 15 percent of the site. He said the driveway length on the upper portion had been substantially reduced and that there are no shared drive- ways. He said the overall site grading is being kept to a minimum and had been reduced. He said the exteriors would be non-combustible materials. He said the density was less than the surrounding subdivisions. He felt they could mitigate any potential view impact. He showed photographs to the Commission and discussed the view lines at various existing homes. He said he understood one of the conditions would be for no blasting. He said the average size of the proposed units is 2600 square feet, and that the average size of the previously proposed duplexes was 5400 square feet. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, answered questions of the Commission. He said the time table for rough grading would be at least one month. He said he would have to talk to a grading contractor for a better estimate. Holly Nelson, 30856 Via La Cresta, said they would lose their westerly view because of one of the Proposed homes and she asked if the particular lot could just be eliminated as a home site. With the exception of Dr. Baer, none of the Commissioners objected to pur- suing development on the upper site. Dr. Baer was opposed to grading in the Open Space Hazard zone and said this site was almost a landmark. He was not in -favor of disrupting the hillside. Mr. Hughes said he would like to see everything clearly marked on the tract map at the next meeting. He felt something should be done to make proposed unit #1 minimally impactive. He requested designating the ridgelines, so there is no question about what the development would do to the view of ad- jacent residents. He also requested a detailed time table and information about what kind of equipment would be necessary to grade the hillside and also information on where they planned to take the dirt. Dr. Brown noted the suggestions in the staff report also. He said the majority of the Commission agreed with proceeding with development on the upper site but wanted details on the structure heights, time table on grad- ing and what would be done with the dirt, cross sections, etc. Dr. Baer expressed concern about access to the lower site. He said there was a big bank along Via Rivera that they would have to cut through. Dr. Brown felt that point should be addressed at the next meeting. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Dr. Brown advised the audience to check with staff regarding the next time this item would be before the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 63 Mr. Thompson said this request for an VARIANCE NO. 49 addition to an existing church building 31290 Palos Verdes Drive West was first heard on January 13, at which Landowner/Applicant: Saint Paul's time the Commission requested that the Lutheran Church reciprocal parking agreement between Golden Cove Shopping Center and the church be reviewed by staff prior to further deliberation. He said the parking agreement was submitted by the applicant and allows for full reciprocal parking and vehicular circulation between the shopping center and the church. He said the remaining issue that must be resolved is parking. Staff agreed with the recommendations made by the applicant during the last public hearing regarding the recipro- cal parking agreement, construction of a -temporary -parking area, and con- struction of a temporary walkway between the shopping center and the church. 4/20/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Staff recommended that the -Commission discuss the issues presented and approve the proposed addition provided it does not encroach into the parking area and subject to the draft resolution and conditions. Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing. Michael Strenk, Saint -Paul's Lutheran Church, said they currently have 42 parking spots and that there were approximately 25 cars that could not park in the lot now. He felt it was a burden to require paved temporary parking. He said with a minimal amount of grading thev could provide an additional 20 parking spaces. He was concerned about condition no. 9, con- cerning street improvements. Dr. Brown said that was a standard condition. John Thomson, representing the applicant, discussed the design and said they were working with an existing building and, therefore, there were con- straints on designing the addition. He said the church was trying to uti- lize the facility. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes asked if staff anticipated additional street improvements. Mr. Thompson said improvement of Palos Verdes Drive West to the median would be required. He said information could be obtained from the Public Works Department. Mr. Thomson said they were asking to be able to encroach into the parking area and build as designed. Commission discussion ensued. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 81-38, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 63 and Variance No. 49 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", amended as follows: Condition #3 to read "The proposed addition shall not exceed 2,990 square feet." Delete remainder of pro- posed condition. Condition #7 to read "A minimum of 10 additional temporary parking spaces....... for the addition." Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Dr. Brown noted that this action was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days. RECESS At 9:35 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37060 Ms. Lavitt said at the February 24 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 76 meeting the Commission directed the Avenida Classica/Avenida Esplendida developer to further explore the Resi- Landowner: G. F. Goeden dential Planned Development (RPD) con - Applicant: Lanco Engineering cept for this tract. She said a 4/20/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- conditional use permit was submitted and the design concept now called for 29 single family lots and one common open space lot which would preserve the entire public view and provide a landscaped buffer along Hawthorne Boulevard. She reviewed the proposed access, setbacks, lot sizes, and grading. Staff felt that the plan was consistent with the Code and General Plan. Staff, therefore, recommended that the Commission approve the condi- tional use permit and recommend to the City Council approval of the tenta- tive tract map. She suggested additional wording for proposed condition #5 of the conditional use permit resolution. Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, said they tried to make the plan more com- patible. He said they agreed to the proposed conditions but requested that there be no access at Avenida Celestial from Hawthorne Boulevard, that they did not agree to that. Larry Hill, 17702 Cowan, Irvine, G. F. Goeden Company, requested further clarification as to how the 15 -foot easement would be built. Ms. Lavitt said Public Works would thought was for a simple sidewalk. access to Hughes Market. have the specifications but that the She said the purpose was for public Martin Clement, 30065 Avenida Esplendida, was concerned about density, and he wondered if the green belt area would be usable land. He expressed con- cern about traffic impacts. He was also concerned about the length of con- struction time and the importing and exporting of materials. Mrs. Edwards, 30202 Avenida Selecta, expressed concern about the proposed setback on lot #1 at the south end of the tract which was immediately adja- cent to her home. She said her setback was so large that the whole house would be in front of her home. She suggested graduated setbacks with a 60 - foot setback on lot #1. She said perhaps then she would not lose the view to the north. Bill Edwards, 30202 Avenida Selecta, asked the purpose of the green belt area. Dr. Brown said a Residential Planned Development requires a certain amount of open space area. He said the Commission's concern with its location was for the protection of public views. Mr. Hughes said the only restrictions on the area would be that it be kept open, not built upon, and maintained. Mr. Leonard said there would be no impact and only a small amount of export of dirt, approximately 8000 yards, which would be trucked away. He said the trucks would be filled on the site but could go right out to Hawthorne Boulevard and not take interior streets. Re increasing setbacks, he said if they did it would raise the house and impact the public view. Re the sidewalk he said it was a grading problem and that his thought was to land- scape the area for the use of the people in the tract rather than for public use. Mr. McTaggart suggested fencing both sides of the sidewalk. On motion of Mr: Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Lavitt said the trails were covered in condition #5, and that walls, fences, and lighting were also included in that condition. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 81-39, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 76, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", with the following amendment: add as last sen- tence in condition #5 "Said plan shall show the elimination of view obstruc- ting myoporum along Hawthorne Boulevard." 4/20/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to recommend to ,the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37060 subject to the draft resolution and Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Dr. Brown said the Commission's action on the conditional use permit was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 174 APPEAL Ms. Angus said on February 25 staff 4909 Blackhorse Road Appellant: Mr. & Mrs. J. Sun Applicant/Landowner: A. & S. because they felt the proposed obstruct light and air. Staff necessary criteria in the Code sion deny the appeal, thereby tion. approved the project, which proposed an addition to an existing residence. Cohen She said in addition to the reasons appearing in the appeal letter of March 11, the Suns opposed the project addition would obstruct their view and would felt the proposed addition met all of the and, therefore, recommended that the Commis - upholding staff's approval of the height varia- James Sun, 4915 Blackhorse Road, expressed concern about view obstruction, light and air, and a tree on his neighbor's yard. Arthur Cohen, 4909 Blackhorse Road, said they were not insensitive to the concerns of their neighbors but that considering their needs, this was the most feasible addition for their home. Dr. Baer did not see any grounds to deny the addition. He said he sympa-, thized with the Suns but felt there was no reasonable expectation of 4 view, On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the Commission denied the appeal, thereby upholding staff's approval of Height Variation No. 174. Dr. Brown noted that this action was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days. He noted that it would be helpful to work out the issue of trimming the tree. VARIANCE NO. 66 Ms. Lavitt said the request was to re - 26724 Shorewood Road place a garage that was destroyed by Applicant/Landowner: J. Olivo fire. She said the original structure was constructed with a 7 -foot rear yard setback. She said Building Code require- ments for a minimum turn -around area and site constraints make alternate lo- cations impractical. She said the proposal also includes an additional 126 square feet which would increase the width of the garage from 21 feet to 27 feet, thus decreasing the side yard setback to 5 feet 9 inches. She said the increase in square footage would not cause encroachment into the open space requirement. She said on December 15, 1980, the applicant applied for and was granted a Site Plan Review in error, that the application was later withdrawn and no building permits were issued. She said since no building permits were issued and demolition was not underway, administra- tive error was not justified. Staff recommended that the variance be granted pursuant to the findings in the staff report. 4/20/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Public hearing was opened. Jesus Olivo, 26724 Shorewood Road, said he would like to have a garage like everyone else. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to adopt Resolution No. 81-40, thereby approving Variance No. 66 subject to the conditions in Exhi- bit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Dr. Brown noted that this action was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 72 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for the VARIANCES NO. 57 AND 64 construction of a multi-purpose build - 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard ing which would house a gymnasium, Applicant/Landowner: Salvation Army maintenance shop, activity room, and restroom facilities. She said the building's location would eliminate 13 parking places, some of which could be relocated throughout the site. She said the policy of the Salvation Army had been to not allow cadets the availability of automobiles, but that she was informed tonight that the policy had been relaxed and that there are about 20 cadets with cars on the site, that those with children have been permitted cars. Staff recommended approval of the variance for the sideyard setback encroachment, the variance for the parking reduction, and the conditional use permit for the construc- tion of a multi-purpose structure. James Osborne, Chief Secretary to the Salvation Army, said of the 53 stu- dents presently on campus, 20 had cars, that it was based on individual requests. He said it was primarily parents with children in school and that he did not anticipate the number to increase. He discussed the usage of the site. William Roberts answered questions of the Commision. Re use of the gymna- sium, he said they would probably use it twice a year for festivities to raise money. He said there were two buses used by the cadets for transpor- tation of the band and that the building would not interfere with the loca- tion of the buses. He said the building would not be visible from Hawthorne Boulevard. Mr. Hughes felt that with 42 acres there was somewhere else that they could place the structure without encroaching into the setback area. Mr. McTaggart said he could not make the findings for the encroachment variance since there was so much property available. Mr. Roberts said they could redesign the building so there is no encroach- ment. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to deny Variance No. 57 based on the Commission's inability to make the necessary findings. 4/20/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve Variance No. 64 based on the Commission's ability to make the findings required by law, as presented in this evening's staff report. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 81-41, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 72 and Variance No. 64, amended to show the denial of Variance No. 57, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", amended as follows: Condition -#3 to read "Any significant change (determined by the Director of Planning) to the plan or use shall re- quire a revision to the conditional use permit." Condition #9 to read "A statement signed ......... that cadets are permitted to maintain and possess a maximum of 25 automobiles while residing ......... shall be notified." Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe Dr. Brown noted that this action was appealable to the City Council within fifteen days. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said this item required no Housing Element action, that it was put on the agenda for last week's meeting (April 14) for the benefit of the City Council, so that they might receive comments from the Commission before the item came before the Council. He said since the Commission did not meet last week there was no real need to discuss the matter now. He explained that the Commission would be part of the Housing Committee and that there would be many meetings coming up. He said it looked like there may be three meetings in May. He said the Council wanted to meet the October 1 deadline. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown said the Chairpersons of the Peninsula Planning Commissions were meeting regularly once a month now. He said the four of them would be taken on a tour of the Courtyard (the Hahn development). He said they discussed mobile homes, policy on low and moder- ate income housing, and school sites. He said the next meeting would be the first or second week of May. Dr. Brown asked when the Sedway/Cooke study, -as amended, would be going to the City Council for approval. Mr. Weber said tomorrow night the Working Draft would be considered by the Council. He said he would transmit copies to the Commission. 4/20/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Dr. Brown noted that Special Animal Permit No. 13 was approved by the City Council (the appeal was denied). He also said the Boetcher fence variance appeal would be considered by the Council tomorrow night. ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p. -m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, April 28, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 4/20/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-