Loading...
PC MINS 19840612MINUTES City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Hesse Park Community Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Brown, Ortolano, McNulty, Von Hagen, Wike ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner Alice Angus and Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni. COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF Held to the end of the meeting. MAY 22 & MAY 29, 1984 OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Dr. Brown advised this item is a con- EASTVIEW AMENDMENT tinued public hearing. Associate Planner Alice Angus presented the staff report. She said included in the Commissioner's packets were changes made at the last meeting regarding uses of the CG Zone, and use of Sanitation District Site. Since the last meeting, the merchants have been working on alternate proposals and those will be considered this evening. The first issue is the appropriate development standards for the CG Zone. The merchants' new proposal is for a 101 front setback, 101 side and 201 rear wherever a commercial use abutts a residential use and no setback abutting commercial uses. Their proposal also recommends that existing buildings be exempt. Staff has re-evaluated its original proposal and recommends the following changes: 1) the setback abutting streets be 20' with 5' landscaping along major state highway arterials, 2) the setback abutting all other streets be 20' with 101 landscaping, and 3) the setback abutting residential be 20' with 10' landscaping along the property line. Included in the packet is a chart comparing staff's proposal with merchants. The second issue which should be discussed tonight regards commercial sign standards. Again, the merchants have submitted a new proposal. Staff outlined the changes proposed in the latest merchants' proposal. #603X -Al 9 9_1 Staff was not proposing any changes to its original proposal. Staff recommended that Planning Commission take public testimony and close the public hearing, then decide on the appropriate development and sign standards for the CG Zone. The Planning Commission should adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment #14, Zone Change #13, and Code Amendment #18. Mr. Von Hagen asked if staff had a chance to check on setbacks relative to fire regulations. Mrs. Angus said that the L. A. County Fire Department downtown office, which reviews development plans, did confirm that as long as there is no opening (window or door) a commercial building can go right to the set- back. Staff still had concern about allowing buildings without any of the required setbacks. If a building was built two or three feet from a setback and then an adjacent building wanted to expand, it could end up with an area of dust a few feet between buildings. Staff feels that could become a fire hazard because trash could collect back there and it could not be easily maintained. Mr. Von Hagen asked about the recommended setbacks; was there a reason why the landscaping on the sideyard exceeded what was proposed for the mayor thoroughfare. Where the right-of-way is 100' wide, staff believed the properties across the street are more heavily impacted by the street itself rather than the commercial use and, therefore, the landscaping would not provide much protection. On the other hand, staff felt 10' of landscap- ing could afford some protection on the other streets. Mrs. Ortolano asked staff if 10' was the minimum setback between buildings for a safety factor. Mrs. Angus said that 10' is probably a good standard for a minimum. Mrs. Ortolano asked what the setback requirement is existing now on the condominium property abutting Jay's Liquor Store. Mrs. Angus said they currently range from 10' to 181. The City's setback would be 201. Mrs. Ortolano noted that since those condominiums were built pre -city they were in the situation if they burn down they have to rebuild according to City Code. Mrs. Ortolano asked if staff had contacted the City Attorney about the issue of regulating sign copy. Mrs. Angus said he checked some of the court cases, and is still checking. Staff felt if it turns out that regulating copy is indeed unconstitutional or unlawful given recent court cases, it could be amended, all Sections of the Code. Mrs. Ortolano asked about parking lot signing. It seems to her that there should be some flexibility for the Director. -2- Planning Commission 6/12/84 2- #603X -A2 Mrs. Angus stated that it was always the option if someone proposed something and staff denied it, they could appeal to the Planning Commission for consideration and it is not a variance. Dr. Brown said this was an important point. Mrs. Ortolano directed attention to wall mounted signs. Regarding Jay's Liquor Shopping Center, will the wall signs be within Code? Alice Angus said based on the photos, it looked like most will comply, but with photos there is no scale. Original records would have to be found from the County or the signs would have to be measured. Dr. Brown continued the public hearing. Margot Chapman, Security Pacific Bank, 333 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles represented Western Avenue Concerned Merchants, spoke about traffic enforcement safety. Among other cities, Costa Mesa has recognized that making signs smaller does not help the traffic situation and they have included traffic safety as a factor in formulating their five commercial sign districts. On July lst, a court decision, Eller vs. the City of Roseville #819378AS, Circuit Court, County of Micone, Michigan stated that smaller signs could reduce traffic safety because drivers could be required to divert their attention from the road for greater periods of time. The second topic was competition. The purpose of the sign chapter of the Code of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, page 301, in addition to disapproving of sign clutter says signs must harmonize with buildings, the neighborhood and other signs in the area. The third topic was the uniqueness of the particular area. Even though all the commercial districts were originally zoned Cl, different areas have developed in different directions because of many factors. A small group of homeowners and merchants have been meeting for several months to work out a compromise. She felt that they have formulated the basis for a set of laws that will be easy for the homeowners to live with but still allow the merchants to be clearly competitive with their neighbors across the street. Mrs. Ortolano asked how many merchants had been attending the study sessions. Mrs. Chapman answered on the average of 7-8 per meeting. Dr. Brown asked how many homeowners associations did Mrs. Chapman meet with? Mrs. Chapman said they met with Burley Ray Johnson, Mrs. Kennard, and Walt Yeager. Sam Mednick, 3021 Club Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90064, owner of Harbor Heights Shopping Center for 25 years, believed that Western Avenue should not be compared to Golden Cove Center as it is an unrealistic example. Restrictions across from Harbor Heights Shopping Center did not follow the same restrictions. It was stated that they are now a part of Rancho Palos Verdes and need to work together and consider everyone's needs. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A3 3 Burley Ray Johnson, 28115 Montereina Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes directed attention to the May 22 staff report, page 2. He read paragraph A relative to sign illumination. As this relates to sign issues, he did not object to setting different standards on a point by point basis for Eastview and then allowing, if it is appropriate, commensurate legislation to be passed, to the bulk of the City. He saw no advantage to be gained by deferring to some later unspecified point in time when the entire City could enjoy that better ordinance. He spent the last several weeks meeting with the Eastview Merchants Association to assist them to gain a better understanding of some of the issues which he heard expressed by various homeowners and homeowners associations in the area. There were some issues not addressed in this particular ordinance, an example would be noise ordinance control. The ordinance the merchants have submitted will eliminate flagrantly obnoxious signs in the area but it does not eliminate all that is on the negative side. He could find no where in the ordinance anything that talks about sign construction, material, durability as opposed to the dimensions of the sign. He thought this was a very important issue to the residents. They didn't want something that would detract from the aesthetics. He quoted from the Code; he found no standard that sets a minimum allowable distance distance between free standing signs, there exists a potential problem in safety and identification. Dr. Brown deferred to staff to remark on Mr. Johnson's comments regard- ing criteria for illumination, noise, sign construction materials, and free standing signs. Mrs. Angus said the Code does address illumination; within the first 30 days after a permit has been taken out staff monitors for problems. Relative to noise, the Code does not specifically deal with noise, but the City does have a nuisance procedure. Regarding the distance between free standing signs, the City does not put control on the distance between signs. Dr. Brown said he thought the Code addressed placement of signs in a shopping center with mayor identification sign and other signs for the businesses. Mrs. Angus said the Code does say that one sign should not detract from another. Mrs. Angus spoke about materials of signs. Mrs. Ortolano read Mr. Johnson's statement from the May 22, 1984 Minutes. She said she thought the most significant comment was that he said he had been a member of the Eastview Goals Committee and as far as he was concerned the Eastview Goals Committee did not understand the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mrs ortolano asked Mr. Johnson if he owned property or had any business along Western Avenue. He answered No. -4- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A4 0 0 She asked his occupation. He answered, a Business Consultant. She asked if he had any clients or business interest along Western Avenue. He said he did not. Mrs. Ortolano said she asked that question because someone in private conversation said he was not really representing homeowners but rather that he had clients. She felt it only fair for him to respond to that. Nels Ostrem, 445 W. 7th Street, Suite F, San Pedro, TSO Investments Corporation said he believed a good deal of the problem was the lack of actual physical measurement taken on Western Avenue. Mr. Ostrem said that the 5' landscaping requirement would knock out one complete row of parking, thereby decreasing the legal usage of retail stores. Regarding the five foot setback, he asked if the reference to that was from the City of Los Angeles jurisdiction line or their line. Mr. Ostrem said that in the Center with Security Pacific Bank, the City/County line goes through the parking lot. Robert Keenan, 13031 San Antonio Drive, Suite 209, Norwalk, represented the Sign Users Council. He answered questions, Dr. Brown asked Mrs. Chapman. He said persuasive evidence presented in that case said that smaller signs require traffic safety being reduced by readibility, visibility, and increase amount of time drivers must divert attention from the road. The Sign Users Council was not the Western Avenue Concerned Merchants, but an organization they asked to assist them and consult with them; therefore, he felt perfectly correct to disagree with the recommendation from the point meeting from the homeowners and the retail community. The first is permanent free standing signs at 161. He went back to his original contention that 20" seems to be a reasonable height. Mr. Keenan asked how many signs this ordinance makes nonconforming and whom. He thought before the Commission or Council made a decision, they should understand how much impact it will have on how many. Mr. Keenan said the last time Dr. Brown said they ought to be concerned with economics. Dr. Brown said he could not really agree with that. They have variance procedures based on finding unique and exceptional circumstances and that is not economic circumstance. Mr. Keenan said then a hardship for the business person would not be his inability to maintain his business. Dr. Brown said they could not be in the business of economics; that is not their purview, nor is aesthetics. -5- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A5 J5 Mr. Keenan contended if the signs come down as staff recommends there will be heavy economic impact on businesses and, therefore, on the City. Dr. Brown said he understood that point and that has been made to the Planning Commission in the past by those that had to bring their signs into conformance; for example, Hughes Market. Mrs. Ortolano made a statement that this Commission considers numerous factors. She asked Mr. Keenan if the case law he cited was a Michigan case, Mr. Keenan said yes, then referred to cases in San Diego, Palm Springs, City of Los Angeles, and City of Walnut Creek, California. Mrs. Wike asked how many signs are in the 201 range. The Commission asked the height of various signs. Mr. Keenan proceeded to read his list. Mrs. Ortolano asked for a copy of his list. Leron Gubler, 1303 Dodson, San Pedro represented the San Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Commerce. He addressed the issue of the consistency. He raised the question if it was consistent to apply the same criteria to the Western Avenue businesses as applied to other businesses in the City. There are unique differences between the City's shopping areas and Eastview. Besides being a highway strip commercial district, Western Avenue caters to a totally different clientele, and are faced with critical topographical problems unique to the area. He said that the homeowners association asking to apply the same standards to Eastview as the rest of the City needs to understand that whether or not you lower the signs or whether or not you remove them altogether, you are going to have a highway strip commercial district on Western Avenue; you will never have a neighborhood center. Along with his remarks, he submitted an exhibit from Costa Mesa City Sign Ordinance (ordinance was read). He suggested that it was totally consistent to have different standards for signs in a City based on the different variables in question. Mr. McNulty said that the homeowners eluded to have imposed upon their pieces of property the same building ordinances over here even though they live in Eastview. Mr. McNulty said you should not blame the people for wanting to impose the same restrictions throughout the City. Dr. Brown asked if he was suggesting that the topography of Western Avenue is any more adverse or not adverse than that which exists on Hawthorne Boulevard. Mr. Gubler said what he was saying is that a highway commercial strip is different from a neighborhood shopping center. -6- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A6 to Mavis Northern, 270 S. Bristol Street, Costa Mesa represented the Western Avenue Concerned Merchants. She referred to the compromise of the merchants and presented a petition of 535 signatures signed by customers of the stores representing four plazas. She read the language of the petition which was prepared by the study group. Barbara Kennard, 3402 Deluna Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, commented on setbacks. She said you are better off not to have setbacks because they can build up to each other. The other thing that she was concerned with is the landscaping requirement where there is a mandatory 101. When you take away from the size of the parking you will be taking away from the size of the building because one is contingent upon the other. She said a lot of people will be put out of business if the Commission does not grandfather a variance, the existing buildings as they are on the site. Dr. Brown said that you would end up possibly with a smaller structure in order to provide other things required by the standards, if that were the standard set. Nobody is denying an economic problem for the merchants. Dr. Brown commented on variances, he was personally opposed to a blanket variance because it subverts having development standards in the first place. Victoria Marino, merchant and resident, Bloomin Petunias on Western Avenue, clarified who was on the Study Committee; it included 2 home- owners, 2 small business representatives, 1 large business, Sign users Council, Chamber of Commerce representative and 1 representative from the bank. One of the things that came out of the study was to do a survey of all the businesses in the Western Avenue area. She distributed surveys signed on an individual basis by consumers. 71% of those surveyed answered they found the business by seeing the sign. RECESS: RECONVENE: 9:30 P.M. 9:45 P.M. Dr. Brown moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed. Dr. Brown said there were two items to deal with 1) commercial general development standards and 2) appropriate sign standards. He recommended dealing with development standards first. Dr. Brown made a motion to approve the staff's latest recommended CG Standards. Motion died for lack of second. Mrs. Ortolano suggested taking the components of the CG Development Standards and discussing them. The first item to be discussed was minimum setback abutting the street. Mr. McNulty had no disagreement with staff's recommendation and moved that present buildings be exempt from that setback and allow a grandfather clause that will establish their present footprint and will allow that present footprint in the event of the destruction of their property. -7- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A10 rJ Dr. Brown overruled Mr. McNulty and said the Commission can deal with that issue after some standards are set. It was the consensus of the Commission to proceed. The Commission discussed the first item. Mr. McNulty's position was to exempt these existing properties from these standards when they rebuild. Dr. Brown asked Alice Angus how much land was still to be developed. Mrs. Angus said there is no vacant commercial land. Dr. Brown asked who would it apply to if we grandfather it. Mr. McNulty said if someone wanted to tear down their building without being destroyed by fire, then he would be subject to the Development Code. Mr. Von Hagen asked to address the issue of grandfathering. Dr. Brown said that Mr. McNulty's suggestion was to grandfather in all the existing businesses and in such a fashion that if there is fire or act of God that the businesses will be allowed to rebuild to the develop- ment standards that currently exist prior to City's incorporation. That if a merchant wished to change his business greater than 50% on his own volition, he would have to follow new standards. Mrs. Wike was concerned about grandfathering, she wanted a time limit for rebuilding Mrs. Wike also wanted a 15 year statute of limitations. 111018y Mr. Von Hagen did not believe that a statute of limitations could be done. Mr. McNulty said the trouble would be there are some newer and some older buildings. He felt if the ordinance restricts these people in what they can do in reconstruction, the lack of value of their property will be evident. Mr. Von Hagen agreed with Mr. McNulty and embellished on one thing; these landowners to maintain tenants and be competitive in the market place will need to build a product that is leasable in the market place. Mrs. Ortolano said there is a fairness in the concept of grandfathering because buildings are such permanent structures. She would be more comfortable with a 10 year amortization period. Dr. Brown was not impressed with uniqueness. He believed the standards that staff recommended are less restrictive than any in the City for commercial property and said the idea of grandfathering will not work. He thought it is very unfair to the other merchants in the City. Mr. Wike could not agree to grandfathering without the time limit. She was willing to compromise on the time limit. -8- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -All $ Mrs. Ortolano moved that the Commission adopt the commercial standard for the CG District which was proposed by staff but that they exempt the property owners of record from those standards for a period of ten years in the event that the property should be destroyed due to some involuntary act. Mrs. Ortolano explained that she was exempting property owners of record, but if the property should resell that owner would not be exempt. Dr. Brown asked what happens after ten years. Mrs. Ortolano said they would be subject to Development Code Standards adopted this evening. Mrs. Wike seconded the motion. Mrs. Wike asked for clarification of property of record. Mr. Von Hagen said a serious error is being made. The value of any property in the open market is based on the price a free and willing buyer is willing and able to pay at the time the sale is consumated. He still had a problem with the 10 year amortization. Mr. McNulty thought that a 10 year amortization is a mistake. 25 years may be an area where a commercial area may be amortized. He disagreed with trying to limit to owners of record at the time of enactment of the development criteria. Dr. Brown said the Commission had failed to take any recognition of the homeowners request. Mrs. Ortolano said that any new owner would take it with knowledge, so that removed the involuntary factor. She was willing to back off from property owners of record and make it buildings; however, she wanted to speak very strongly for a ceiling of 10 years. Dr. Brown said two are in favor and two are opposed. Mr. Von Hagen disagreed with the statute of limitations. It would have an economic impact. If there is a statute of limitations, he would rather go through ordinances making changes line item by line item. Mrs. Ortolano amended her motion to adopt the Commercial General Plan Standard which has been proposed by staff but exempt the presently existing building and owners for a period of 10 years in the event the building is destroyed due to some involuntary act. Seconded by Mrs. Wike. ROLL CALL: AYES: WIKE, ORTOLANO NOES: McNULTY, VON HAGEN, DR. BROWN -9- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X-Al2 I Motion failed by 3 - 2 vote. Mr. McNulty repeated the same motion, but changed the period to 25 years. Seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. Mr. McNulty could not see subjecting new developments to the problems of not being able to get through their financial obligation. Mr. Von Hagen wanted to go on record as not favoring the statute of limitations, but seconded the motion because he did not think he could achieve anything from his point of view. Mrs. Wike said she could go along with the motion in that she was not set regarding the number of years. Mrs. Ortolano said 25 years is too long for the City not to have control. ROLL CALL: AYES: McNULTY, VON HAGEN, WIKE NOES: BROWN, ORTOLANO Dr. Brown said that by motion, approved the Commission accepted staff's recommendations relative to the Commercial General Standards but that the businesses and owners will be exempt for a period of 25 years for involuntary destruction of the property greater than 50%. SIGN STANDARDS Dr. Brown recommended accepting staff's recommendation. He felt the recommendation is less stringent than what occurs in the rest of the City and there will be some sites in Eastview that would require some variation. Dr. Brown moved to adopt staff's recommendation relative to the Commercial General Sign Standard. Motion died for lack of second. Mr. Wike suggested taking each item step by step and voting on it. Mr. Von Hagen suggested an amortization period. Dr. Brown said we have a 5 year amortization program. Discussion on amount of time for amortization, 7 years, 10 years, 5 years, 2-5 years. Dr. Brown moved a 5 year amortization period for signs and adopt staff's proposal relative to proposed Commercial General Sign Standard. Seconded by Mrs. Ortolano. -10- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X-AI3 Jo 9 0 1 Mr. Von Hagen did not feel the amortization period was long enough, and he had some problems with the proposed Code. Mr. McNulty deferred to Mr. Von Hagen's comment and was in agreement. Mrs. Wike could go along with the 5 year amortization. There were a few things she would like to see changed. Dr. Brown asked Mrs. Wike to list those specific areas of concern. Based on her concerns, the Commission agreed to make the following changes: 121 maximum height for "for sale signs" on undeveloped property. Said signs must be setback 51 from the property line. Parking lot signs limited to two unless otherwise approved by the Director of Environmental Services. Mr. Von Hagen referred to illumination. He had no problem with 24 hour illumination as long as there was no glare reflection or inconvenience to residential property. He felt in the evening hours with the heavy traffic on Western Avenue, if the shop owner wanted to leave his light on for advertising purposes, it is good business, and he did not agree with staff recommendation that it be on during period of operation only. Dr. Brown was strongly opposed to illumination of signs when business is not in operation. Mrs. Ortolano asked for more study on the issue. She thought Mr. Von Hagen's point had some validity as well as Dr. Brown's point. Mr. McNulty suggested leaving it on 1 hour following operation. Dr. Brown suggested recommending to Council to look at the illumination of signs. Dr. Brown agreed with standards saying only during hours of operation or one hour beyond and then asking Council to deal with it. The Commission agreed. Mr. McNulty moved to adopt the recommendation of staff as amended and that the amortization period be increased for all signs except illegal signs or non -permit signs to 7 years. Seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. ROLL CALL: AYES: McNULTY, VON HAGEN NOES: BROWN, WIKE, ORTOLANO _11- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A14 Dr. Brown moved to accept staff recommendation relative to Commercial General Sign Standards as amended with a 5 year amortization period. Seconded by Mrs. Ortolano. ROLL CALL: AYES: ORTOLANO, WIKE, BROWN NOES: VON HAGEN, McNULTY Dr. Brown stated that the amendments will be sent in recommendation form to City Council and then it is at the discretion of City Council to decide whether to accept, reject, or amend these recommendations. Dr. Brown encouraged all those interested to keep in touch with staff as to when City Council will be dealing with the issue. Dr. Brown moved to adopt RESOLUTION P. C. 84-17 as amended; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. RECESS: RECONVENE: 11:30 P.M. 11:44 P.M. Mr. McNulty wanted the record to show that he did not agree with the amortization. NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE 105 A staff report was presented by Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni. He PROPERTY OWNER: ABDALIAN stated this was a request to allow ADDRESS: 30825 MARNE DR. a combination wall/handrail over forty two inches in height within the required front setback. He gave a brief history of the permits as presented in the staff report. He said the combination wall does not appear on any grading applications and assumes the wall was built without approval. He referred to Attachment "B" and the topography was discussed. He stated that approval was given for work associated with the driveway only (approximately 188 cubic yards). He said this came to the Department's attention through the Building Inspector. Investigation revealed that a new retaining wall was being built. Photos were distributed and discussed. Mr. Pedroni stated the applicant's wish was construct a pool on the property. He said the 1983 a Site Plan Review was submitted to place a pool in the backyard and given approval in November of 1983. Since then, they have reconsidered their original request to place the pool in the back yard because estimates have been monetarily prohibitive because of the existing soil condition and a handicapped resident could not easily access a pool in the backyard. -12- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A15 12 Mr. Pedroni discussed issues of safety and visibility. Based on this information, staff could not justify all the findings necessary to grant the request. Thus staff recommended adopting RESOLUTION P. C. NO. 84- , denying Variance 104, and require the walls in both the front and sideyard setbacks be brought into conformance with the Development Code and the area restored. Mr. Von Hagen asked for elaboration on viable alternatives. Mr. Pedroni said to require fill for the front yard, requiring terracing in the front, with staggered retaining walls; however, there would be no room for a pool. Mr. McNulty asked if there is any proof that the wall has been properly engineered to hold back the street. Mr. Pedroni answered no, there is no way of knowing the footings. Mr. Arik Abdalian, 38025 Marne Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated he did not mean to break the law. His builder built the wall and he assumed he obeyed the law. He stated he wanted the pool in the front yard and would do anything and everything possible to do that. Dr. Brown asked if he was aware that the wall was built without permits. Mr. Abdalian said he did not know that because during that time his mother suffered a stroke. Dr. Brown asked if he was still in touch with the builder and if he was unwilling to put the pool any place else. Mr. Abdalian said yes because of cost and that his mother could not access the pool in the back. Mr. McNulty aired concern over finding out who built the wall in the front and the engineering of the wall. He suggested turning it back to staff to find these answers. Adelaida Abdalian, 30825 Marne Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, deferred to her brother, Arik Abdalian, and added nothing more. Dr. Brown asked if she was familiar with the builder. She said she did not know where he is now and would have to check. Mr. & Mrs. Fred Brown, 30904 Marne Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes were called but had left. Mrs. Ann Richardson, 30823 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes was in favor of granting Variance 105. She said Mr. Abdalian was not aware of not having permits. She said the only level place is in the front yard. She asked the Commission to try to help them. -13- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A16 13 Dr. Brown spoke about liability on the City's part. Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed. Mr. McNulty moved to table the item until the applicants could work with staff on alternative solutions, seconded, and passed. The applicants were given 60 days to get back to staff. TENTATIVE PARCEL The staff report was presented by MAP 8666 Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. He directed attention to the maps, PROPERTY OWNER: GABRIC discussed the configuration of the ADDRESS: 3157 CROWNVIEW DR. lots, and the slope analysis. Mr. Putrino said it is staff's opinion that future development of Lot 2 would require Planning Commission review due to the need to vary from the Development Code in order to develop the lot. Staff believes that since Lot 2 has some problem areas, the subdivision should be redesigned or the number of proposed lots be reduced in order to accommodate existing buildable areas. Staff recommended adopting RESOLUTION P. C. 84- denying Tentative Parcel Map 8666 since the site is not physically suitable to accommodate three lots in terms of design and potential uses as proposed. Mr. McNulty asked if the applicant has submitted a footprint for the three lots. Mr. Putrino said no because he did not think the applicant intended to build on Lot 1 and 2. Dr. Brown stated that with the parcel map process the Planning Commission must be assured the requirements of setbacks, size, etc are met and that there are buildable lots. Dr. Brown opened the public hearing. George S. Gabric, 3157 Crownview Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes said this application has been around for three years. He purchased the property from Dan Melilo who provided him with blueprints and map showing that he had petitioned the City to abandon the Palos Verdes Drive East right-of- way. Mr. Gabric said it was Mr. Melilo's understanding that staff had accepted the lot boundaries. He said he worked with Ms. Lavitt of the staff and Mr. Melilo. He said Ms. Lavitt assured him it was buildable, so he took it from there. He gave a brief history of events. Orginally 4 lots were proposed, but he revised it to 3 lots and submitted a new petition in 1983. It was only last Thursday he was told it was not proper. He said there has been a lot of time and expense involved. -14- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A17 1� Mr. Dale Hinkle, 343 Temple Avenue, Long Beach addressed the Commission as a geotechnical specialist.. He believed it would be reasonable to allow 2000 square foot houses on the property with minimum grading. Discussion continued relative to grading and consideration of foundations vs. footing excavation. Mr. Edwin M. Saiki (Westco Engineering) 4431 W. Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 400 said he previously worked in the County Engineer's Office. He had worked with Ms. Lavitt and reviewed the feasibility of developing three lots and Ms. Lavitt never made issue about the feasibility. Mr. Putrino said the County has its criteria and the City its and perhaps the criteria is different. He referred to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code regarding grading. Mr. Stuart Scudder, 712 Bluira, Redondo Beach, Attorney for the applicant, gave a brief history of events and discussed no required setbacks for the driveway and completion of the application in September 1983. Mr. Von Hagen moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mrs Wike, and passed. Dr. Brown moved to adopt RESOLUTION P. C. 84-18 denying Tentative Parcel Map 8666 since the site is not physically suitable to accommodate three lots in terms of design and potential uses as proposed. Seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. CUP 39 - REVISION "A" TRACT 31714 APPLICANT: URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES ADDRESS: 3030 SOUTH BUNDY DR. LOS ANGELES 90066 HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW The Planning Commission did not wish to have a staff report by Steve Rubin as the hour was late and it was submitted in their packets and had been read. Dr. Brown moved to adopt RESOLUTION P.C. 84-19 approving Conditional Use Permit 39, Revision "A", amending the approved grading plan for lots 14, 16 16, and 19, Tract 31714, seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously. Mrs. Ortolano asked staff what RJA and RHAM stands for. Staff responded. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the staff recommendation to recommend that the City Council find that a revision to the Housing Element is not necessary based on this review. ADJOURNMENT 2:00 A.M. -15- PLANNING COMMISSION 6/12/84 #603X -A18 1,�