Loading...
PC MINS 19840724M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes �12� Planning Commission July 24, 1984 Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Hesse Park Community Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: BROWN, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, MCNULTY, WIKE Also present were Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni, Secretary Ann Brenesell, Director of Environmental Services Sharon Hightower and City Manager Don Guluzzy. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of July 10, 1984 not 15-20 square feet. Mr. Von Hagen requested a correction on page 6 to read ...only 15-20% and Mrs. Wike moved to approve the minutes as amended; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen, and passed unanimously. LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN Tentative Tract Map 40640 Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni stated this request is a response to Condition 12 of Conditional Use Permit 68 for the tract. The main criteria is to review the landscape plan for view consideration. Dr. Brown stated that when the Commission dealt with this issue before, the concern was with preservation of views between the homes; that was the reason for creating wider side yard setbacks. Mrs. Ortolano referred to page 2, first paragraph of the Landscape > document and reminded the Commission about f4 e--aplsric—aET n -off r Ca fe do gj&envs. She asked staff for clarification of the language and her concern focused on future property owners not knowing or having any idea of how the grade was determined Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, RPV, discussed the concern relative to how the grading was done and the existing contours. Mr. Burrell displayed a map. Mrs. Ortolano asked if the grading was required by the City to improve the view. ` Mr. Burrell answered it was for internal purposes mainly. Ideas were discussed on how to permanently notice the owners. There was discussion on affixing an exhibit to the proposal for each lot, inclusion of a map that would show existing grades on the park and recording the document as part of the CC&R's. � k Mrs. Ortolano asked how many lots there were. Mr. Burrell, said 29 total, 25 residential. Discussion continued relative to natural land proposed grades.' When asked if something could be done to give property owners notice of what grade measurements were to be taken from,, Mr. Burrell answered that it was possible to do that. Dr. Brown said we will be allowing an envelope to allow landscaping to a certain height predicated to an existing grade. Most of the lots will not be at existing grade. A good portion will be graded down. Mr. Burrell agreed to a bench mark for people to easily identify later. He thought he could attach a map to the landscape plan or CC&R's. Mr. Pedroni said he had no problem with that. Mrs. Wike was concerned about so much of the responsibility for maintenance being left to the Homeowner's Association. She questioned who would enforce it if the homeowner's group became inactive. Mr. Burrell referred to page 4 of the document, and stated that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would have the right to enforcement. Dr. Brown stated that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would have the right to enforcement. Dr. Brown stated that the City dos not enforce CC&R's when the City is not party to them. If the City is signed into the agreement, then the City has leverage. It was the consenus of the Commission to refer the matter back to staff for appropriate language and an amendment to the Plan with specificity to the buyer. VARIANCE NO. 106 Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowner's Assn. A brief staff report was presented by Associate Planner Steve Rubin. He explained the request by the Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowner's Association is to locate a maximum 5 foot high tract I.D. sign. The proposed location of the sign is on private property. Photographs were displayed and discussed. The City requirement for intersection visibility is 30" maximum height for vegetation and structures. The existing vegetation exceeds this limitation. Mr. Rubin said there is not a critical visibility problem at this time. He said the proposed wall could improve a situation that is not critical at this time, but that trimming the existing vegetation would also improve the situation. Staff was unable to make the first two mandated findings for a variance. Mr. Rubin recommended adoption of Resolution P.C. No. 84-19 denying Variance No. 106,, with a stipulation of trimming the vegetation. Dr. Brown stated that the proposal would involve the removal of some of the trees. Mrs. Ortolano asked for clarification of the definition of a structure versus a wall. Mr. Rubin stated that they are the same. -2- P.C. 7/24/84 R Dr. Brown asked if they were grading down, would there be a variance request? Staff responded that if the structure exceeded 30 inches, a variance would still be required. Dr. Brown opened the public hearing. Dr. Dennis Drag, 6415 Le Blanc Place, RPV, was in favor of the proposed wall and a member of the Monaco Homeowner's Association. He presented some background. He referred to other Identification signs in the area and said the intent was to remove the vegetation and to construct a wall. He beleived by doing so, visibility and safety factors would be improved. The intent of the wall is for identification purposes also. He stated the variance is for the center portion of the wall only. He thought the wall would improve the identity of the corner. He referenced findings 1 and 2 and believed the wall would enhance values and bring pride to the area as well as enhancing the beauty of the City. Dr. Brown iterated the reasons for specific findings. He stated there must be extraordinary and exceptional circumstances in order to grant a variance. He said it is difficult to make the findings, because if it was not, there would be no point in having a Variance procedure in the first place. Dr. Drag felt that findings 1 and 2 were simply a judgement call. Dr. Brown asked what is preventing the group from designing an ID sign in compliance with the Code. Dr. Drag said the center portion needed height to see the name; that was the reason for the request; for proper display of the name. Dr. Brown asked for clarification on garden wall versus a retaining wall. Mr. Rubin clarified the same 30" requirement. Dee Beaumont, 30143 Matisse Drive, RPV, president of the Monaco Homeowner's Association spoke about pedestrian safety. The wall would allow pedestrians to walk safely as there will be additional foot traffic because of the closing of Margate and the use of Ridgecrest School. She thought by allowing the wall, it would create goodwill between the City and the homeowners. Mr. George Norman, 6375 Sattes Drive, RPV agreed with Dr. Drag and Ms. Beaumont relative to safety and supported the building of the wall on his property. He was concerned, however, with the preservation of the existing tree. He wanted it trimmed and moved back 3-4 feet behind the wall to block noise. He was also concerned with plumbing -3- 7/24/84 5 for sprinklers. He wanted the sprinklers preserved for watering. His intention was to maintain the beauty of the corner. Dr. Drag stated they would attempt to move the tree, but that it would depend on the root system. Mrs. Ortolano asked the height of the tree. Mr. Norman said 20-25 feet. Mrs. Ortolano asked if the tree was in compliance. Mr. Rubin stated it needed a 6 ft. clear trunk. Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Peter Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Mrs. Wike noted other identification signs, that are low, citing examples of La Crestaeesa, and Northrop, that are within code limits. Mr. Von Hagen thought the idea of the sign and wall was a good thing but, he said they must deal with the variance procedure and make the four findings. He agreed with staff's recommendation, and that an attempt, could be made to bring the design of the sign and wall into conformance so that a variance would not be required. Mrs. Ortolano agreed that the Commission needed to make a factual determination. She said it is a visibility triangle. She referred to the Hesse Park sign being in conformance. She said she could possibly make finding #1 based on the grade and the busy intersection and it being extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, but she could not make finding #2. She said they have a right to place a sign there but not a 5' sign. She said she could not vote to support this and asked they rethink the project because it could be an asset to the community'.' A motion was made by Mr. Von Hagen to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-19 denying Variance 106; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown advised the action is appealable to City Council within 15 days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4453 Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the staff report. He stated the reason for the request is to allow Temple Beth El and Center of San Pedro use of Miraleste Elementary School for religious school activities and other community uses. Use would sometime begin qbetween January - September 19R/1He thought the delay was due to llo�q� 0' monetary cost of the remodeling. Mr. Rubin said this use is stLpulated as a conditional use. The most critical issue is the parking. lie believed that with restriping, 30 cars could be accommodated. Mr. Rubin was concerned with overflow parking. Mr. Rubin, entered into record, a letter received from Marion Ross, a concerned citizen relative to the maintenance and trash on the site. Mr. Rubin said this issue can be dealt with in the conditions. He suggested scheduling being considered -4- 7/24/84 to avoid conflict with other users of the facility. Dr. Brown asked staff's feeling about the time element involved. Mr. Rubin said the Commission could hold on to the application until the time is approaching the Temple's estimated beginning of occupancy, or deal with the application now as it relates to the nature/intensity of the proposed use. Mr. Von Hagen asked for clarification on the Temple's reconstruction period of 12 months for completion. Mr. Rubin said that was the initial request. The issue is that City Council has stipulated that type of use to have a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Von Hagen raised the question of the Temple leasing from the School District with its ability to sublet. He was concerned with the issue of appropriate civic center uses. Dr. Brown said an important point is the INTENSITY OF USAGE that might occur at the site which triggered the purpose for the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Von Hagen said he would like to see some restriction on the evening usage time as it would be burdensome to the neighbors. Mrs. Wike was concerned with the potential sub -lease control being lost. Mrs. Ortolano said the function is to look at the intensity of use. She focused on services to be held on the premises and parking being inadequate. She asked how many cars would be generated. She had no problem with the religious school but was concerned with the religious services and number of cars generated. She felt there was not enough information for a decision. Janet K. Konzak, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Districct, provided background information. She stated that the Temple's time frame has changed. She understood it would be no longer than one year. She stated that the Palos Verdes Homes Association approved the use by Temple Beth El as appropriate within the deed restrictions. The Miraleste Homowners gave verbal approval also. Discussion continued relative to the number of members of Temple Beth E1. Mrs. Ortolano questioned why the First Church of Christ, Scientist did not require a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Konzak said the use was included in the educational code. The reason she was before the Commission was the City Council thought it was appropriate for the Temple Beth E1 use. Ms. Konzak was asked if the school district received a copy of Marion Ross's letter and asked who maintains the property. -5- 7/24/84 I Ms. Konzak said they had not received a copy of the letter and that the School District would be responsible for the exterior. Dr. Brown raised concern about the Friday evening services. Ms. Konzak said they anticipated infrequent services according to her information from the Temple Beth El Rabbi. Dr. Brown wanted to know how many people would attend the services. Ms. Konak said about 100. Dr. Brown asked how much money they would be receiving. Ms. Konzak said about $1.35 per sq. ft.; about $31,000 would be generated. Dr. Brown moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. McNulty. It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to research the following and return to the Commission at a later date: 1) Subleasing controls by the City. 2) Parking situation - requiring a reciprocal agreement possibly with Miraleste High School. 3) Staff to send Marion Ross letter to the School District. 4) Number of members - Temple Beth El - # of attendees at services. 5) Specific uses to occur at site. 6) What triggers City approval. Commission requested the need for a spokesman from the Temple Beth El to answer questions for the record. Mrs. Wike would like to see what is specifically going to be sublet and to whom. Dr. Brown was concerned with approval for something not taking place for 16 months or longer because things could change. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN City Manager Don Guluzzy said State Law requires the Planning Commission to approve the Preliminary Plan and select the Project Area. He discussed the scheduling. Mrs. Ortolano asked if the boundary line followed the moratorium line. Mrs. Hightower said it went outside the boundary only to include full parcels of land. Mr. Guluzzy said this makes sense looking at it broadly. We do not know all possible solutions by geologists yet; data is being gathered. The primary objective is to slow the movement of Palos Verdes Drive South. -6- 7/24/84 & Mrs. Ortolano asked if the project area may change. I Mr. Guluzzy said it could possibly change depending on the Council. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 84-20 approving the preliminary plan for Project Area No. 1; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. REPORTS STAFF Associate Planner Steve Rubin gave a brief update on the Golden Cove General Plan Amendment. Council determined that they would approve the General Plan Amendment designation of 6-12 units an acre with a zoning density of 8 units an acre. The Council will be provided a resolution at its next meeting. An audience question was if a group of citizens were to gather signatures for a referendum, when would the 30 -day period commence? Dr. Brown said he was not clear on the answer and asked that they contact the city staff for the information. ADJOURNMENT p.m. Mr. McNulty moved for adjourn- ment; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen; and passed at 10:10 ■1