Loading...
PC MINS 19911022 !II .449/w-ei .9/ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7: 35pm by Chairman Von Hagen at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Von Hagen, McNulty, Hotchkiss, Katherman, Brooks ABSENT None Also present were Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Joel Rojas, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas, and Project Planner Nancy Hutar. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen acknowledged communications from R. J. Gilto, Roy Good, Chris Manning and Tim Burrell. Senior Planner Carolynn Petru also stated that a letter had been received from Barbara Walch regarding Public Hearing "A" . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of September 24, 1991 B. P. C. Resolution No. 91- , Variance No. 306 C. GRADING NO. 1563, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 419 D. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20475 EXTENSION REQUEST E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 -- REVISION "B" (EXTENSION) Commissioner McNulty moved, seconded by Commissioner Katherman and carried, to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Brooks abstained from voting on Item "E." PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CHAPTER 15.20 CODE Commissioner Hotchkiss stated REVISION he would withdraw from participation in this item at the advice of the City Attorney, because he lives in the moratorium area. Project Planner Nancy Hutar presented the staff report detailing the proposed code revisions. Staff's recommendation was to close the public hearing and take one of the following actions: 1) Recommend to the City Council PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1991 approval of the proposed revisions; or 2) Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed revisions as amended by the commission; or 3) Recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed revisions; or 4) Table the item. Ms. Hutar stated that a fifth alternative would be to forward the proposed revisions to the City Council with no recommendation. It was noted that this was a continued public hearing. Sharon Regetschweiler, 6 Clovetree, pointed out two corrections to the Code Revisions, and suggested that greenbelts, be required around future developments to help with fire control. Al Edgerton, 59 Oceanaire, endorsed all code changes but those that might allow a golf course to be constructed in the area, expressing fears that such development would release too much water into the landslide. Andrew Sargent, 1 Peppertree, stated he felt these revisions were changing the policy of the City, and asked that they be tabled. Chris manning, 14 Crest Road Westj Rolling Hills, also asked that the item be tabled until the new Planning Commission and City council were in place. Mr. Manning expressed support for the code sections that would allow homeowners to take full advantage of their properties. Cathy Manning, 29438 Quailwood, claimed that Section "J" (15.20.040.J) of the proposed revisions would allow the developer of the golf course to acquire huge loans, and she suggested that a legal -specialist review the revisions for any possible loopholes. Roy Good, 15 Cinnamon Lane, spoke against the proposed changes, claiming there were too many inconsistencies, and suggested the document be clarified before being passed on to the Council. John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, stated he felt the general public would oppose these revisions, and that they ,should be rejected because this was merely a political decision. Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine, spoke against the proposed revisions, stating she felt it went against the Development Code. Commissioner McNulty moved, seconded by Chairman Von Hagen, to close the public hearing. The motion passed 3-1, with Commissioner Brooks dissenting and Commissioner Hotchkiss abstaining. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1991 Commissioner Brooks objected to closing the public hearing on the grounds that since the 30 -day comment period on the draft negative declaration was not yet over, citizens were not getting a chance to comment. She also expressed concern that the document was not yet ready to be passed onto the Council, and stated that although she felt 95% of the suggested revisions were in the best interests of the people, there were still unanswered questions about liability. Commissioner Katherman asked what the earliest City Council meeting date would be on this item if the Commission were to forward it on tonight. Ms. Hutar replied that November 19 would be the earliest, due to noticing requirements. Mr. Katherman asked if Section "J" could be tabled on its own, and Ms. Hutar responded that the Commission had that option, but suggested that the revisions be acted upon as one document. Commissioner McNulty noted there would be an opportunity for more public testimony during the City Council hearings on the issue. Mr. McNulty also stated that none of the proposed revisions had anything to do with a golf course, but rather were codifying existing guidelines. Chairman Von Hagen agreed with Mr. McNulty, recognized that this was a political decision, and said he felt that the City Council should make the final decision, and have the earliest opportunity to do so. Commissioner Brooks reiterated her concerns about the draft document, and suggested that Section "J" be dealt with separately or tabled, and that more input was needed from experts. Commissioner Katherman stated he felt it would be appropriate to recommend to the City Council that the current moratorium borders be more accurately redefined, since the moratorium had originally been intended as a temporary land use, not a permanent one, and suggested that the language of Section "J" be tightened. Chairman Von Hagen pointed out that Section "J" had been reviewed by the City Attorney with more scrutiny than perhaps any other part of the Code, and had been developed by the Subcommittee after many hours of discussion. Commissioner McNulty stated he felt a recommendation to change the moratorium area would be inappropriate, since the meetings had been noticed only for code revisions, not for major boundary changes. Commissioner McNulty then moved that this material be passed on to the City Council recommending approval of everything except Section "i", which would be passed on to the Council Page 3 L�] PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1991 with no recommendation either way. seconded the motion. 6 Commissioner Katherman Commissioner Brooks suggested adding language to Section "J" to address the problems of liability and indemnification, to require appointment of an independent geologist on larger projects, and to require consideration of the geotechnical merits of a project before a project would be approved. Commissioner McNulty objected to the idea of a third geologist, stating that he felt the City already had a competent geologist they could trust, and that the cost would be prohibitive. Commissioner Katherman stated he felt that the existing system was sufficient for small projects but not for larger ones in the moratorium, where two independent analyses would be important. The motion on the floor to pass the document on to the Council with recommendations on everything but Section "J" was voted upon and failed 2-2, with Commissioners Brooks and Katherman dissenting. Commissioner Brooks moved to pass the document on to the Council to a meeting to be held at a time when the new Council would be in place. Chairman Von Hagen pointed out that it was not appropriate to agendize the Council, and staff agreed. Chairman Von Hagen moved to send the entire document to the City council with no recommendations. Commissioner McNulty seconded the motion. Commissioner Katherman stated he felt that there should be some sort of recommendation, and Chairman Von Hagen agreed, stating that since he had made the motion because he did not think there could be a consensus. The motion was then withdrawn. Regarding the indemnification issue, Chairman Von Hagen stated he felt the court system was an adequate recourse, and put the burden of proof on the damaged party, which indemnification did not. Commissioner McNulty said he felt that the more appropriate vehicle to address liability concerns would be through the process of a conditional use permit, where the commission could impose any restrictions or require bonds it felt necessary for any project. Regarding the geotechnical pre -approval issue, Mr. Von Hagen {pointed out that developers would balk at expending large amounts of money on projects that might be denied, although he agreed that it should be very clear that no permits would be issued before adequate geotechnical information was approved. Commissioner Brooks conceded the point. Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1991 Commissioner McNulty restated his motion to move the material on to the City Council without a recommendation on Section "J", but recommending approval on all other portions. Commissioner Ratherman seconded the motion, and stated he was assuming that the new Council would hear this item. The motion passed 3-1, with Commissioner Brooks dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE B. VARIANCE NO. 299 28614 Mt. Sawtooth request to allow a second would encroach 51 into the recommendation is to appro Mr. Rojas also noted that all conditions. A 10 -minute break was called at 9:25pm. Associate Planner Joel Rojas presented the staff report regarding the applicant's story addition over the garage that front yard setback. Staff's ve the request with conditions. the applicant was in agreement with The public hearing was opened, and then closed, as there were no speakers to the item. Commissioner McNulty moved, seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss and carried, to adopt the staff recommendation. C. VARIANCE NO. 286 Commissioner Hotchkiss excluded COASTAL PERMIT NO. 98 himself from participating in 44 Seawall this item as he lives in the Portuguese Bend Club area. Planner Rojas presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow (1) A room addition within the front 20' setback; (2) 288 sq.ft. of new habitable space beyond the 250 sq.ft. limit allowed in the Coastal Setback Zone; and (3) An exemption from the Code requirement of two enclosed garage spaces. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. Commissioner Brooks inquired about the mound of land near the project site, and was informed by staff that the Portuguese Bend Club regularly regrades the area as part of the Klondike Canyon landslide abatement program. The public hearing was opened. John Hazard, 44 Seawall, applicant, in reference to one of the conditions of approval stated that he would like to continue to use the lower room and asked what was considered habitable versus non -habitable. He was informed that the City's Building Official would make a final determination. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNulty moved to adopt the staff recommendation, Commissioner Ratherman seconded, and the motion passed Page 5 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1991 without objection. D. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46628, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 158, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 94, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1439 PVDw/Hawthorne continue the public hearing to Senior Planner Carolynn Petru presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow a 79 -lot single family RPD. Staff's recommendation is to open the public hearing, discuss the merits of the project, and November 12, 1991. Ms. Petru also noted that the applicant had requested that the internal project roads have controlled access, but that staff was opposed to any privatization of the streets. She also stated that open space configuration could accommodate golf as a component of a potential municipal golf course. In response to a query from Commissioner Brooks, Ms. Petru explained that the Trails Committee had recommended that the bluff road be non -vehicular, and that it be gated at night. Staff does not support this recommendation because of coastal access needs, and because the City would then be responsible for locking the gates. Commissioner Hotchkiss suggested that an additional road be added at the point of the proposed emergency access road, connecting the bluff and internal development roads for the ease of the residents. Ms. Petru noted that there would also be a pedestrian connection to the interpretive center. The public hearing was opened. Bill Gilmore, 340 E. 2nd Street, representing the applicant, stated his support for a non -vehicular bluff road but objected to a trail access between the residential interior streets and the bluff. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, expressed her objections to the project, stating it was against the Coastal Specific Plan. John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, also objected to the proposed development, stating he felt it was a sensitive coastal area. The public hearing was continued to November 12, 1991 without objection. Commissioner McNulty stated he would like to see a view analysis done, and supported restricted access to the bluff road if legal, and conversion of the emergency access road to a regular access road. Mr. McNulty also stated he was opposed to a bluff top trail for safety and liability Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1991 reasons, and suggested that an outside expert should be consulted as to whether or not the land being dedicated for public use and access was sufficient for a potential municipal golf course. He also expressed concern about the split level lots. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he was in agreement with Commissioner McNulty, and added that he felt the bluff top road around the houses should be vehicular, and that there should be pedestrian access through part of the development to the bluffs. Commissioner Brooks said she was glad to see the extended frontage widths, and suggested remaining sensitive to moratorium issues, setting up architectural guidelines, studying the potential view impact, and making the bluff road non -vehicular to cut down on potential crime. Mrs. Brooks also stated that the idea of a turnout off of PVDW should be examined, and questioned the reason for establishing a dead end equestrian trail that would have to be maintained by the City. She also congratulated the developer on the downsized project. Commissioner Katherman stated he was also pleased with the positive revisions submitted by the developer, especially with regards to habitat preservation, and he also expressed concern about criminal access to the proposed bluff top road, and stated he felt it should not be vehicular. Mr. Katherman also supported the idea of a PVDW turnout or parking at the interpretive center to reach the bluffs. Chairman Von Hagen stated he was not pleased with this plan, especially with Lots 58-79, due to their layout and placement, and that he favored the street pattern of the original plans. He asked to see some alternative layouts at the next meeting, and stated that if split level lots were to be considered, he wanted'to see where the pads would be placed. He also objected to the gates, felt the bluff road should allow vehicular access as called for in the General Plan, and suggested there be an additional access road off PVDW, and designated parking areas on PVDW and on the bluff top road if appropriate. He also asked staff to confirm whether or not view protection guidelines accorded to residential areas were similarly applied to commercial properties. NEW BUSINESS A. GRADING NO. 1561 Associate Planner Terry 6200 Via Canada Silverman presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow 793 cu.yds. of grading for construction of a new single family residence on a lot with an overall average slope greater than 35%. Staff's Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1991 recommendation is to conditionally approve the project and require the applicant to redesign the structure. Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff, representing the applicant, stated they supported staff alternative #5, requiring the applicant to submit height variation and grading applications. Commissioner Katherman expressed support for the proposed design, especially the indirect driveway, and he then moved to adopt staff alternative #5. Chairman Von Hagen seconded the motion, which passed without objection. B. PALOS VERDES DRIVE Assistant Planner Fabio de EAST AT CORSINI PLACE Freitas presented the staff VACATION report regarding the applicant's request to allow vacation of a portion of PVDE at Corsini Place for various improvements within the area. Staff's recommendation is to adopt a resolution with the finding that the street vacation would not be contrary to the General Plan. Gary Wynn, 1852 Lomita Blvd., Lomita, representing the applicant, stated he felt the application was not contrary to the General Plan. Commissioner McNulty moved to adopt the staff recommendation, Chairman Von Hagen seconded, and the motion carried without objection. C. PALOS VERDES DRIVE The staff report was waived SOUTH AT YACHT HARBOR regarding the applicant's DRIVE VACATION request to vacate a portion of PVDS at Yacht Harbor to allow the Association control and maintenance of this portion of the road. Staff's recommendation is to adopt a resolution with the finding that the street vacation would not be contrary to the General Plan. Commissioner McNulty moved, seconded by commissioner Katherman and carried, to adopt the staff recommendation. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS There were no audience questions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:17pm. Page 8