Loading...
PC MINS 19811110, , I I I I 11 � I , I I � J . . . . . . . .. . ly ,,, 11�lfl M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Ad3ourned Meeting November 10, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, and Associate Planners Richard Thompson and Sandra Massa Lavitt. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Thompson noted that the two communi- cations distributed to the Commission tonight both related to Tract No. 40640 which was the first public hearing on the agenda. He said one was submitted by Dr. Baer and the other by a concerned resident. Dr. Baer noted thatA061P—app i e lse received a copy ofA4*-k-.,w communicationy IvY CONSENT CALENDAR Dr. Baer pulled the minutes of October 27, 1981 and proposed amending page 2, paragraph 7, by adding to the end of the first sentence that the applicant "did not show-s4=;,�ftines or building envelopes on the seaward side of the lots, nor did he show white water views." It was the consensus of the Commission that the minutes as presented accur- ately reflected what was presented and did not need to state what was not presented. Dr. Baer proposed amending page 3, paragraph 10, to read.as follows: "Charles UOK§ Forbes...... near ocean view from a downward slanting inline and said...... on the downhill side and the solid wall effect of the buildings on the seaward side and felt......" On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of October 27, 1981, with the above -stated amendments to paragraph 10 of page 3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 40640 Mr. Thompson said at the last meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 68 the Commission approved the concept de - Portion of Coastal Subregion 1, sign subject to a more detailed examina- adjacent to Palos Verdes Estates tion by staff and with the elimination Landowner: M. Berry, Trustee of one of the two tennis courts. He Applicant: Burrell, Ltd. said by eliminating one of the courts, a 5 to 10 foot retaining wall was also eliminated. He said a 20 -foot wide access easement to lots 1 and 2 over the adjacent Kildiszew lot was dis- covered and added to the map. He said the proposal called for 10 one-story homes, 9 two-story homes (7 of which are on the bluff), and 6 split-level homes. He said the applicant was proposing a 7 -foot retaining wall in order to provide access. Staff recommended that the Commission close the public hearing, approve the conditional use permit, and recommend that the Council approve the tentative tract map per the draft resolutions and conditions. He suggested the following changes: conditional use permit condition 10, add at the end that "chain link fences would not be permitted"; re tentative tract map condition 45, the Director of Parks & Recreation preferred the fee rather than land dedication. He referred to the communication from the ap- plicant responding to the staff report and conditions. In response to a question by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Thompson said he agreed with the applicant's suggestioii to change coastal setback "line" to "zone" because it was more consistent with the wording throughout the conditions of approval. He said development would not be allowed seaward of the line. The Commission felt that changing the wording raised the question of whether development could take place within the zone itself. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said it would be more attractive to have the same type of fencing constructed at the same time and that the applicant was proposing that if the property owner desired fencing that it be the same. Re the safety fence, Mr. Thompson said it would require the written approval of the Director of Planning and would only be granted if it was deemed to be necessary for safety reasons. Mr. Hughes asked what mechanism of enforcement would be used to make sure that the watercourse and trail were adequately maintained. Mr. Thompson said the CC&Rs would be the mechanism with the City acting as an enforcing party. In response to further questions by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson said the fence would be built on the property line and that the developer would also provide a walkway and bikeway which the City would maintain. Mr. Hughes said since tentative approval had been given on the project, the Commission should concentrate on the conditions of approval this evening. Re Dr. Baer's memo, he said if it was the consensus of the Commission that there were items which had not been adequately addressed that the Commission should discuss them. Dr. Baer discussed his geology concernoX,6( Mr. Hinchliffe said the whole coastline was geologically reviewed and based on that the Coastal Setback Zones were established. He said this area was deemed acceptable for development. I Mr. Thompson said geology was addressed in the environmental impact report. It was the consensus of the Commission that the geology issue had been ade- quately and thoroughly addressed. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that all of the items cited in Dr. Baer's memo had been adequately and appropriately addressed. Re views, Dr. Baer did not feel it was necessary to allow all structures to reach the 16 -foot height limit since the project was a residential planned development. Mr. Hughes asked if the conditions of a conditional use permit could limit the height below what the Code allows. Director Hightower said theoretically it was possible, but that the City Attorney has advised against it, stating previously that the Codes should be uniformly applied City-wide. Public hearing was opened. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, agreed there was no reason to change the term coastal setback line to zone. Re fencing, he said there was no ques- tion about the type of fence, that the only issue was whether people would have the option of having a fence or not. Re sidewalks, he preferred it to be more compatible with the more rural look of the Peninsula, without side- walks, but that if they were necessary he agreed to staff's suggestion of putting them on one side only. Re land dedication or fees, he felt the options should be kept open and suggested wording the condition to say that the "subdivider shall offer for dedication..." 11/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Constance Shea, 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West, expressed concern about the geology and split level structures in front of her home. Charles Forbes, 7343 Via Lorado, expressed concern about the geology, pre- scriptive rights, and the proposed height of the structures. Eleanore Wiedmann, 30032 Palos Verdes Drive gest, expressed concern about the public view, the view from the homes on Via Lorado,' and two-story structures. Robert M. Brockett, 30319 Palos Verdes Drive West, expressed concern about two-story structures and compatibility. Dick Kildiszew, 1736 Chelsea Road, Palos Verdes Estates, expressed concern about drainage, the bluff access easement, and the location of the safety fence. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion on the conditional use permit conditions ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission to have additional controls placed on the landscaping or that the landscape plan be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Hughes directed staff to write a condition with some reasonableness to it that could be measured and hopefully enforced. Mr. Thompson said the applicant suggested the following wording: "A land- scape master plan shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the Planning Commission." Dr. Baer suggested adding condition 3.G. to permit existing residents the option of joining the Homeowners Association if they so desire. Re the tract map conditions, the Commission added to 19.b. the words "or wider." It was the consensus of the Commission to delete condition 19.c. requiring sidewalks. RECESS At 10:25 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:36 p.m. with the same members present. It was the consensus of the Commission to change tract map condition 27 to read "...scenic easement over the face of the bluff to the City...", and to add to condition 38 "...and will ensure that only natural appearing grades will be created."; to add to conditional use permit condition 3.E. "Side yard setbacks shall conform to the City's development standards and the front and rear yard setbacks shall conform to the approved tentative tract map.", to add condition 13 to read "Prior to recording the final map, a landscape master plan shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the Planning Commission. The approved landscape plan shall be included in the approved CC&Rs.", and to add condition 3.G. "Residents con- tiguous to the site will be permitted and encouraged to loin the Homeowners Association." Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 81-57, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 68 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", as amended this evening. 11/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTagqaIrt, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 40640 with the map as amended this evening and subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution as amended this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes noted that the public hearing on the tentative tract map would be held at the first City Council meeting in December. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 77 Mr. Thompson said the request was for 28503 Highridge Road a 120 -foot antenna pole to hold a low Landowner: Don C. Wallace power television transmitting antenna, Applicant: Richard C. Blum to be located on a 24 -acre site con- taining 61 existing poles. He de- scribed the zoning, the site location, and the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval of the project sub- ject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Public hearing was opened. Richard Blum, P. 0. Box 2626, Palos Verdes Peninsula, said he agreed with the staff findings and proposed conditions. He explained that low power television was a new service with perhaps a 20 -mile radius that would go out on one of the UHF channels. Mr. Hughes said he understood that there were only two others of this type in the country and that they were under experiment. He said there were no standards as yet and felt perhaps this application was premature. Mr. McTaggart asked if the applicant would oppose a condition which held the City harmless for any expense if at some future date the applicant was required by the FCC to use a different type or size antenna which the City did not permit. Mr. Blum said he would agree to that condition. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Director Hightower said the Commission could make the conditional use permit conditional upon the ap- proval by the FCC, but that there was a time limit involved for obtaining permits once the conditional use permit is approved. Dr. Brown said this antenna was different than the others on the site, and he felt the application was premature and was opposed to granting it. Mr. Hughes agreed that operationally it was different but felt that techni- cally they could deal with the differences. He felt this City had probably the best radio location in all of the South Bay area. He felt there was a much broader opportunity before the Commission than simply granting an an- tenna. He said when the FCC announced its intent to use the UHF spectrum more fully with this experiment, there was a flood of applications. He 11/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- said the matter was still being studied. He felt the City should look at its own controls and whether it is desirous to have local programming available for the City. He said if the permit is granted the Commission should make sure that until a station license is granted there is no con- struction. Mr. Blum agreed to that condition. Dr. Brown suggested that the City Attorney be apprised of this and that the matter be tabled until then because of the Commission's concern with regard to the franchise with Times Mirror Cablevision, etc. Dr. Baer requested that the applicant also supply more information. Mr. Blum said they could provide the City air time. He said he could not proceed with the FCC until a location for the antenna is selected. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the item was tabled to allow staff the opportunity to do some more investi- gation and the applicant the opportunity to submit further information. VARIANCE NO. 73 Ms. Lavitt reviewed the background of 6831 Alta Vista the request and said the project was Landowner: C. K. Ho approved in January of 1980 with nota - Applicant: Young & Associates tions on the plan showing what the correct measurements were to be, to be checked out by the County, but that the structure was built with the rear of the structure exceeding the 30 -foot height limit by 5 feet. She said final inspection occurred on October 10, 1981 and that the residence was currently occupied. She said the error was not detected until the construction was nearly completed. Staff recommended that the variance be approved since an administrative error did occur in the issuance of permits for the house. Staff further recommended that the filing fee be waived. Public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak on the matter. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 81-58, thereby approving Variance No. 73 based on administrative error; and further directed that the filing fee be waived. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 37 AMENDMENT Ms. Lavitt said the request was to 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South allow the parking lot ad3acent to Applicant/Landowner: Hanna- Palos Verdes Drive South to be tempor- Barbera's Marineland ary instead of permanent and to, there- fore, lessen the landscaping require- ments because the cost of the land- scaping is more than the applicant could afford, the pro3ected need for parking was overestimated since the actual attendance levels fell short of previously projected levels, and the increase in bus ridership has further lessened the number of parking spaces needed. She said the Code does not establish a formula for calculating the appropriate number of parking spaces for a recreational,facility like this. She said according to the 11/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- applicant, the lot has only been used on 19 to 25 days each year since January of 1979 and, therefore, a temporary lot seems more appropriate at this time. She said the Code permits lessening the landscaping standards for a temporary lot and allows for temporary lot permits to be used and renewed on an annual basis to cover a period not to exceed three years. Staff felt that a year to year review in addition to the three year time limit would ensure that the lot remains as long as but no longer than is necessary. She reviewed appropriate heights for the vegetation at the proposed locations, as determined by staff. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Richard Smith, P. 0. Box 927, answered questions of the Commission. He said he was comfortable with the staff recommendation concerning landscap- ing. a Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve the amendment as recommended by staff with a change to condition 2, adding to that condition that the landscaping be completed within 90 days. Mr. Smith said it would be done prior to December 31 of this year. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to adopt Resolution No. 81-59, thereby approving the amendment to Conditional Use Pemrit No. 37, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A", as amended above. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower introduced Joe Gamble, the recently hired Assistant Planner, to the Commissioners. She said he had a degree in landscape architecture. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown noted that the input from Reverend Cummings stated that the Canterbury Gardens retirement facility did not receive its license as a skilled nursing facility. Director Hightower noted, however, that the facility would still be con- structed to meet those standards. ADJOURNMENT At 12:30 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, November 24, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 11/10/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-