Loading...
PC MINS 19820608M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 8, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. in the Community Room, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, McNulty, McTaggart, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Assistant Planners Jon Shepherd and Joe Gamble. Mr. Hughes congratulated Dr. Brown and Mr. Hinchliffe on their reappoint- ments to the Commission and welcomed the newly appointed member, Robert E. McNulty. Dr. Brown arrived at 7:33 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving: A) the minutes of the meeting of May 11, 1982, B) the minutes of the meet- ing of May 25, 1982, and C) approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 8941 (per Resolution No. 82-11). CODE AMENDMENT NO. 14 Mr. Gamble said this Code amendment was initiated by the City in order to add, correct, and clarify various sec- tions of the Zoning Code. He said the Commission received the draft amend- ments at its meeting of May 25, 1982 and that pursuant to the Commission's concerns staff added an additional section as part of the clean-up legisla- tion. Staff recommended that the Commission reopen the public hearing and adopt the draft resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 14. The public hearing was reopened. There was no one present wishing to address-' the Commission. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 82-12, thereby recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 14 subject to Exhibit "A" as presented this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McNulty, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32322 Ms. Lavitt said at its meeting of 6480 Palos Verdes Drive East April 27, 1982 the Commission reviewed Landowner: LaRue Thomas this subdivision and discussed various Applicant: South Bay Engineering issues. She said the City Attorney has responded to the Commission's concern about issuing a minor exception permit for the decrease of measurement of depth for lot #1. She said it was his opinion that the Code is clear and that a minor exception permit is the correct application to deal with this issue. She said as requested, staff analyzed the feasibility of moving the east lot line and that moving that line across Diamonte and including the area now on lot #3 may create a maintenance problem; and topographically, much of the area is on slopes of 35 percent and could not be utilized for any purpose other than open space. She said the City Geologist has completed review of the geology and soils report prepared for this project and conditionally recommended approval of the map. She said one of the conditions is that lot #1 must undergo correc- tive work and be completed prior to the final map or bonded prior to the filing of the map. She said the Traffic Committee reviewed the proposal and agreed that sight distance is improved by relocation of the driveway and, therefore, recommends that the driveway be relocated. Staff recommended that the Commission reopen the public hearing, discuss the issues raised in the staff report, and provide direction to the applicant. She said the resolution and conditions of approval would be prepared for the next meeting if the Commission thinks it appropriate. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Ms. Lavitt said the driveway loca- tion recommended by the Traffic Committee is as shown on the map. Public hearing was reopened. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, had no comments but said he was avail- able to answer any questions. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said although he was not present at the original public hearing, he has reviewed all of the material and minutes for this item and was ade- quately prepared to vote on the matter. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded'by Mr. Hughes,,to conceptually approve the project per the recommendations listed in the staff report. Mr. McTaggart said even though the City Attorney felt a minor exception permit was the correct application to deal with the issue of depth measure- ment for lot #1, he still felt it was an inappropriate mechanism. In spite of potential maintenance problems, he felt having a diagonal lot line across Diamonte would be better than requiring a minor exception permit to make the lot legal after it is split. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: McTaggart ABSTAIN: McNulty ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38848 Ms. Lavitt said on April 21, 1982 the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 City Council approved the subject ten - SW corner of --Crest & Crenshaw tative map and certified-Ithe--environ- Landowner: Rutter Development mental impact report (EIR). She said Applicant: Lanco Engineering the developer subsequently received permission to grade prior to the recordation of the final map. She said this project was back before the Commission because the applicant did not request an extension and the tentative map expired. She said the ESR remains as an adequate document. She said the applicant has completed about 90 percent of the rough grading for the site. She said it now appears that Texaco is willing to negotiate with the applicant for the old gas station site and it is hoped that site can be integrated into the project. She said a drive has been graded leading to the parcel from the cul-de-sac adjacent 6/8/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- HA 0- 0 to lot #59 and that it would be shown on the final map, per condition #28. She said the grades were as approved and that there appeared to be no major problems with the proposal. Staff recommended that the Commission review the map, -open the public heciring, approve the conditional use permit and recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative map. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said there were no changes from the previous application which was approved. She said the Texaco site was discussed at the previous meetings but at the time the price was pro- hibitive. She said building plans had not yet been received. Public hearing was opened. Don Owen, Cayman Development Company, said the delay was with the County, that they were still waiting for approval of the storm drain plan, etc. He said the working drawings had not been submitted, that they would first submit plans for the model concept and the final working drawings for the homes on specific lots would be firmed up after that. He said they would have six models and although he was not sure of the exact materials, he said the roofs would be fire retardant. He said the CC&Rs had been pre- pared and were currently under review by the State. In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower explained that the two-year law now in effect was not retroactive, but that this map would be approved for two years, per the State Subdivision Map Act, and that the conditions of approval would be changed to reflect that. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to continue the public hearing. Mr. McTaggart felt the Commission should not act on this project without re - reviewing it thoroughly. He was concerned about 28 -foot high structures on the rim lots. Ms. Lavitt noted that the ridge heights were not changing, that the pad elevations would be as previously approved. She said Attachment #2, listing ridge height changes, reflects what was previously changed and approved by the Commission and not new changes requested now. Mr. Hughes noted that those changes were approved after review of the view analysis. Mr. McTaggart said he was also concerned about the access and the Texaco lot. Mr. Owen said they had indicated at the previous meetings that they would continue trying to obtain that lot as it was important to them from a marketing standpoint. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, explained that because of the new law granting two-year terms under the Subdivision Map Act, he interpreted that as meaning that they would automatically receive an extension. He said the driveway was graded, that it was 15 feet wide and provides access to that lot. He said the access will be shown on the final map and the grading plan, and that the driveway was a condition of approval of the project when it was previously approved. Director Hightower noted that all of the conditions of approval would be on the final map. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Leonard said they would like to lower the Texaco site and create a flat pad. The motion to continue the public hearing failed with Mr. McTaggart casting the only affirmative vote. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. 6/8/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 2 Ms. Lavitt noted that condition #4 of the conditional use permit resolution should be changed to read ".....for a unit within two (2) years, or has not been completed within three (3) years....."; and that condition #1 of the tract resolution should be changed to read ".....expires twenty-four (24) months....." Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 82-13, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82 subject -to the conditions of Exhibit "A" as amended this evening, and recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 38848 per the draft resolu- tion and conditions as amended this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McNulty, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. FIRE RESISTANT ROOF STUDY Mr. Shepherd said staff reviewed the Commission's proposal to require Class "B" rating for roofing on all new con- struction and Class "C" rating for reroofing. He said there was no fore- seeable problem in administering that program. He said staff also studied the issue of determining fire hazard areas that would require Class "B" rating for reroofing, and the administration of such a program. He said Fire Chief Bronstrom indicated there would be no charge to the City to have the Fire Department analyze and identify fire hazard areas. He reviewed the two alternatives and said staff recommended approval of alternative A to allow a more accurate analysis of fire hazard areas in the City. Mr. McTaggart suggested that staff should do the analysis rather than the Fire Department. Mr. Hughes said the Fire Department was offering to do it for free and that if the Commission was not satisfied with it they could make appropriate changes. He felt if the Commission found it to be inadequate, they could deal with it differently at that time. In response to a question by Mr. McNulty, Mr. Shepherd said Chief Bronstrom indicated it would take about two weeks to complete the analysis, and that they would begin at the first opportunity. He anticipated it would take about one month. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Alternative A, as recommended by staff. ESTATE ZONING STUDY Dr. Brown said the subcommittee report was before the Commission this evening for review. He asked if staff had in- vestigated whether or not there was a violation of the Subdivision Map Act. Director Hightower said leasing of the land would represent a violation, but not leasing/renting of structures. That portion of the report was therefore deleted. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested changing "real benefit" to "public benefit" and was concerned about specific references to the Vanderlip site in the report. The other Commissioners concurred with Mr. Hinchliffe's concerns and changed the report accordingly. Mr. McNulty said spot zoning could not result from the creation of an estate zone but rather from its application. 6/8/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- The other Commissioners concurred and changed the report to read "Creation and hence application of an estate zone....." Dr. Brown said the last paragraph of the draft report should be an addendum to the report and not included as part of the report itself. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the Commission directed that the report, as amended, be forwarded to the City Council. I COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hinchliffe said he would be unable to attend the meeting of June 22, and would also be unavailable June 29 if a joint meeting with the City Council is scheduled. Mr. McNulty said he may be late for the meeting of June 22, 1982. Dr. Brown said he would not be available if there is a June 29 meeting. ADJOURNMENT 6/8/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 8:50 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, June 22, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. -5- 2