Loading...
PC MINS 19821012(0sn M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 12, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planners Sandra Massa Lavitt and Alice Bergquist Angus, and Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McNulty, the Consent Calendar was _ passed, thereby approving : A) the minutes of the meeting of _Sept6mber''_28, 1982; and B)_.a six=month time ex- tension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 14495. Dr. Brown abstained from voting on the minutes only, since he was absent from that meeting. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 620 Mr. Putrino said the proposed plan was Lot 7, Tract No. 32991, 2903 for the grading of a residential house - Vista del Mar print which differed significantly from Applicant/Landowner: Stewart the approved plan, but that the pro- posed project maintained the require- ments for lot coverage and setbacks. He said the total height of the project was 30 feet and, therefore, subject to a height variation application. He noted that it appeared, from pre- liminary analysis, that the proposed structure would not obstruct the view o.f-,surrounding property owners. Staff recommended approval of the project since the proposed plan fell within the criteria of the Code. Leslie Lippich, 1460 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, said he was the archi- tect for the project and was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 620 was approved. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. TENTATIVE TRACT 38848 REVISION Ms. Lavitt said the request was for a Southeast of the intersection of revision to condition 26.C. of the Crest and Crenshaw resolution approving the tentative map, Landowner: Cayman Development referring to the type of construction Applicant: Lanco Engineering for the curbs. She said the condition required that all public streets have a vertical curb and that the applicant was requesting the substitution of rolled curbs instead of vertical -type curbs. She noted that the street plans had been drawn to accommodate rolled curbs but that the Director of Public Works has withheld signature until the issue is resolved. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council changing condition 26.C. to allow rolled curbs. She referred to the previously approved conditions for the tract which were attached to the staff report. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said it was probably slightly more expensive to maintain rolled curbs, but that the Public Works Department reviewed this project and found no objections to it. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie Avenue, Torrance, said the reason for the requested change is for aesthetics. He said there were no sidewalks in the tract and they wanted it to look similar to The Ranch, across the street. He said there was really no difference in costs between the two type curbs. He noted that the condition, as revised, should specify rolled curbs for interior streets only, since Crest and Crenshaw will still have vertical curbs. Mr. McTaggart said rolled curbs were difficult to sweep and, since there has been a reduction in street sweeping, they should construct curbs that are easier to maintain. Mr. Hughes noted other problems with rolled curbs, including drainage. Mr. McNulty discussed the parking problems that occasionally occur but said rolled curbs were more aesthetic. Dr. Brown shared the concerns of ease of street cleaning, drainage, and cars parking all over. Mr. Hinchliffe said if rolled curbs were acceptable to the Public Works Department, he had no problem with the request to change the curbs from vertical to rolled. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mr. Hinchliffe and Mr. McNulty dissenting, the Commission recommended to the City Council leaving condition 26.C. as previously approved with vertical curbs, thereby denying the requested change. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING Ms. Angus said the request was to 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South determine the applicability of the Applicant: Claranita Hixson conditional use permit process to consider uses such as weddings and receptions for the subject site. She said the Council recently denied the applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment initiation because the site is substandard for the requested zone. She referred to the Code considerations and said the requested uses would attract visitors on a reservation basis not unlike a conference center. Staff recommended that the Commission determine that the requested use is similar and equally essential to the public welfare, thereby allowing the applicant to apply for a conditional use permit. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Angus said the function of tonight's meeting was to determine if the requested use was appropriate to consider under the conditional use permit process, not to determine whether or not a conditional use permit should be approved for the site. She said the deter- mination made this evening would not imply approval or disapproval of the use. Mr. Hinchliffe requested that all speakers limit discussion to the appro- priateness of the conditional use permit process for the requested use and not discuss the merits of using this particular residence for such use. Claranita Hlxson, 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South, presented photographs of the site to the Commission. She said the house must be preserved and that it was a candidate for a national landmark. She said the nicest way to control visitors and preserve the site is to rent the property out for benefits, parties, etc., and put the money received back into the property. William Hopkins, the law firm of Mix and Hodges, 1650 South Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, said he has been representing Mrs.-'Hi-xson,si�nde­.- 10/12/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Z the end of August. He said the events she was having on her property were not a commercial venture, but rather the applicant was using revenues to restore the site. He said it was her intent to leave the property as an institution, an historical landmark. He thought the conditional use permit process was the best legal way to handle it because it offered control over parking, noise, etc., and allowed the City to better police and regulate the site. He said the idea was to have a place promoting the general wel- fare of the area and providing a service to those of a conference center because the site provides a place where people can congregate. Jason Brown, 83 Seacove Drive, said the City charges for beach access and, therefore, there should be no objection to the applicant charging a fee. He said a lot of groups in the community, such as Little Company of Mary Hospital, have used the facility, that the public wants to use the site and the fee is necessary to maintain the property. Jack Roy, 3964 Dauntless Drive, said the ma3ority of the area on the ocean side is commercial usage. He felt a conditional use permit was appropriate and that the granting of one would enhance the property. George Ligar II, 6537 Abbottswood Drive, publisher of the Palos Verdes View News Magazine, thought the conditional use permit should be approved. He said the applicant's feelings for the property were truly a commitment of love. He questioned the beach parking charge and the fencing along the coast and said this was the only property that gives access to the beach and a panoramic view of the cliffs. Martha Jordon, 6011 Avion Drive, Los Angeles, said the property is beautiful, inspiring, tranquil, and should be preserved. She said the applicant has very good intentions and that the site was a perfect place to go for meet- ings, etc. Sharon Ryan, 608 Via Estrada, Palos Verdes Estates, said she has done some catering on the site for a luncheon and a number of weddings. She thought the use was needed on the Peninsula and that it was a beautiful, historical site which serves a number of purposes. She said if there are controls so that the people using the site cannot abuse the rules, it would be a plus for the Peninsula. Dan Posson, 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South, said he lived on the site and that the parties did not bother him and are usually over by 10 p.m. He said some of the parties have been held by him and that his parents have also held social gatherings there. He said the applicant should have con- tracts with the users of the site stating the limits on noise and hours. He said the City's Recreation Department operates on a user -pay system and he thought that was the best way to handle this situation. He said functions have been held there by church groups, etc., but that there have been more weddings than anything else since the site is very conducive to that use. He added that movie companies use the site often and that the site was large enough to accommodate a lot of cars. J.Keith, 4206 Dauntless Drive, said he has been a resident for 25 years and spoke in favor of the petition for application. He said the site would be in a controlled situation under a conditional use permit. Guy Alim, 34 Nantasket Drive, spoke in favor of the request. He said the site was one of the nicest pieces of property in the area and that the applicant has opened it up to the people. Peter Clarke, 10 Peppertree Drive, vice-president of the Portuguese Bend Community Association, submitted a written statement to the Commission. He said the central issue is the zoning, that theirs was a residential community and they objected to the noise, traffic, etc., and the commercial use of the site. 10/12/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES IS -Z 3 Ralph Jester, 20 Narcissa Drive, said no one disagreed with preserving the beauty of the site but that the problem is with the method adopted. He said the best use was residential, per the zoning laws. He said a recent newspaper article indicated that the fees were helping to make the mortgage payments rather than restoration of the site. He said he has lived there over 40 years and that, until the applicant began holding events on the site, the property had never been used for commercial purposes. RECESS At 9:16 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:28 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Hughes said he visited the site and that, without discussing the merits of the project, it was clear that a conditional use permit was the proper process with which to consider this particular request. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to determine that a conditional use permit was the appropriate vehicle with which to consider the types of uses requested. Dr. Brown reiterated that the determination tonight as to whether the condi- tional use permit process was the appropriate vehicle to consider the re- quested uses had no bearing on whether a conditional use permit should actually be approved for those requested uses. The above motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes reported that the Antenna Subcommittee met earlier this evening with Assistant Planner Jon Shepherd, and that they discussed a number of items and made several word changes to the draft ordinance. Ms. Lavitt noted that the next Commission meeting will probably be cancelled due to the lack of agenda items. ADJOURNMENT 10/12/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 9:48 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, October 26, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. am S