PC MINS 19760810M I N U T E S R E V I S I O N S
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
August 10, 1976
Page 3
- under Height Variation #13 &
Grading #33 - paragraph 4 -
should read "..... to approve
Grading #33 and Height Varia-
tion #13 subject to submittal
of landscaping and irrigation
plans, which was ....."
Page 3 -
under Conditional Use Permit
#17 and Variance #8 - paragraph
1 - line 5 - should read ".....
the variance requests for
1) reduction in the required
number of parking spaces, 2)
parking In the front setback,
3) an increase in the maximum
allowable building height and
4) encroachment into the re-
quired side setback by a structure. It was also recommended
that the grading issue ....."
Page 4 -
paragraph 2 - line 1 - change
"Seymour Greben" to "Seymour
Cagen".
Page 4 -
paragraph 3 - line 1 - should
read "5902 Waukesha Place".
Page 4 -
paragraph 4 - line 1 - should
read "5725 Mistridge Drive".
Page 4 -
paragraph 7 - line 1 - should
read "5731 Mistridge Drive".
Page 4 -
paragraph 7 - line 3 - change
"private" to "school".
Page 4 -
paragraph 8 & 9 - delete entire
paragraphs and replace with:
As there were no other speakers, the public hearing was closed
and Commission discussion began. Each item listed on the Code
Requirement Analysis (staff report) was discussed and consensus
was reached for items which require a variance. Other Code
requirements not requiring a variance were discussed and either
found to be acceptable or an issue which staff would check for
adequacy.
Regarding the variance which would allow parking within the
front setback, the consensus was that because parking was an
overall concern, the landscape requirement for the front could
be reduced and that parking be allowed. It was also the con-
sensus, however, that such approval would be subject to the
following changes, in order to maximize the amount of front
landscaping: that the access aisle be reduced to 18 feet and
that the proposed sidewalk in the public right of way be re-
designed to create a 5 -foot sidewalk next to the existing curb
and a 3 -foot landscaped strip on the property line, thereby
creating a landscaped strip with a variable width from 6 to
11 feet.
Regarding the variance for encroachment into the required side
setback by a structure, the Commission expressed great concern
over the proposed zero side yard setback, feeling it would do
a disservice to the future neighbor due to the noise factor and
that it would be hard to justify on a hardship basis. They dis-
cussed methods that would allow for the relocation of the class-
room/administration building and asked the applicant to submit
revised plans prior to approval. The methods agreed to by the
Commission included: allowing the parking stalls adjacent to
the classroom/administration building to be reduced in size and
designated for compact cars only, reducing the aisle widths by
one foot each, and decreasing one foot from the width of the
interior landscaping, thereby creating a margin that could
provide a five-foot sideyard area that should be landscaped.
Regarding the variance for the increase in the maximum allowable
building height, the consensus among the Commissioners was to
approve this, as the height limit was exceeded only at the apex
of the roof and created only a minimal amount of view obstruc-
tion. It was also noted that the pad elevation was very near
street level.
Regarding the variance for reduction in the required number
of parking spaces, the Commissioners felt that the number of
parking stalls proposed would suffice in most cases and that
the cooperative agreements for parking with the Babtist and
Mormon Churches would allow for adequate parking on those
occasions which required additional spaces. Upon questioning
from the Commission, the applicants stated that because of
the sequence of religious holidays and meeting dates, little
or no conflict would result in terms of joint use of parking
areas. It was also pointed out that only about eight parking
spaces would be gained if the athletic court was used for
overflow parking, as per staff's recommendation, therefore
should not be a condition of approval. The consensus of the
Commission for this variance item was approval with the
following conditions: 1) that formal joint use parking
agreements be completed which would provide 125 auxillary
spaces within 200 yards of the site, 2) that a passenger
loading area be designated, and 3) that a plan be developed
to encourage car-pooling and use of alternate transportation.
Referring to those conditions, Mr. Cagen then requested that
the 200 yard condition be changed to 350 yards, as he felt
this to be more reasonable. The Commission concurred with
this request.
Page 4 - under Conditional Use Permit #18 - paragraph 3 - should read
".....attorney representing opponents, explained that his
clients....."
Page 5 - Insert as paragraph 5 - immediately after "The public hearing
was closed." the following paragraph:
The Commission discussed the request for the Conditional Use
Permit and agreed with Staff's recommendation for approval of
the one 95 -foot pole because evidence indicated the site has
been under similar usage for years and that this type of low
intensity activity is, at present, more preferable than what
the zoning would allow for.
P.C. Revisions -2- 8/10/76
0 6
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
August 10, 1976
r
0)
The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Shaw.
PRESENT: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon W. Hightower and Assistant
Planner Gary Weber.
MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by
Mr. McTaggart and unanimously carried,
the minutes of July 22, 1976, were
approved with the following amendment: On page one, Mr. Rosenberg be
shown as absent, rather than none.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of July 27, 1976, were approved with the following amendments:
Page one, under CUP #14, Tentative Tract #32614, "Mr. Thoryk explained...."
-- the words "remove one unit" should be struck; Page three, under CUP #16,
Tentative Tract #32744, change "John Davidson" to "�Fohn Davis".
Ai(�y I
VARIANCE #6 Director Hightower reviewed the request
30159 Avenida de Calma for an encroachment of a wooden deck
Applicant: Thomas Scharer into the rear yard setback, and ex-
& Associates plained that this is a continued pub-
lic hearing. Recommendation was that
the variance be denied.
Thomas Schorer, 916 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, applicant,
explained that the reason they had requested a continuance from the last
meeting was to allow time to build a scale model of the proposed deck,
which he presented to the Commission along with some other exhibits (pic-
tures, etc.), pointing out that the deck would be at the same height as
the concrete patio.
Dr. Horowitz, the landowner, spoke in favor of the deck and discussed the
conflict which has arisen between himself and his neighbor over the pro-
posed deck.
John Provenzano, 7240 Crest Road, the neighbor opposing the project, felt
the deck would be an encroachment on his privacy.
Mrs. Horowitz explained that their main concern was to have privacy as
right now they and their neighbors look into each other's homes.
Mr. Schorer pointed out that the deck has been designed to screen the
roofs below and allow the occupants to view the ocean from inside their
home. He described the landscaping, etc.
During discussion the Commissioners each concurred that there was an
existing privacy problem, but expressed differing opinions as to the best
possible solution.
Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion to deny the request for Variance #6, which
was seconded by Mrs. Shaw, and carried with the following vote:
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Shaw
NOES: Blue, Rosenberg
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mrs. Shaw advised the applicant that this decision may be appealed to the
City Council within ten (10) days.
P.C. -1- 8/10/76
•
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #16
TENTATIVE TRACT #32744
Porto Verde Apartments,
Beachview & Nantasket Drives
Applicant: Porto Verde Assoc./
E. L. Pearson
and Tentative Tract #32744 was
1976.
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL OF
SEWAGE PUMPING PLANT PROJECT
Parcel Map #6844, Variance #7,
Conditional Use Permit #15
•
Mrs. Shaw explained that they had re-
ceived a request from the applicant
to continue this item to the first
meeting in September. No one in the
audience wished to speak. On motion
of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue,
and unanimously carried, the public
hearing on Conditional Use Permit #16
continued to the meeting of September 14,
Director Hightower explained that this
was a draft resolution including the
findings and conditions of the Commis-
sion's action at their last meeting.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried,
the resolution of approval of the sewage pumping plant project, approving
Parcel Map #6844, Variance #7, and Conditional Use Permit #15, was approved.
ANTENNA STRUCTURES Director Hightower explained that this
ORDINANCE proposed amendment to the Development
Code has been put into ordinance form
which includes all the Commission
changes.
On motion by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, the proposed ordinance
concerning Antenna Structures was forwarded to the City Council with the
recommendation for approval, carried with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
GRADING #60
Lot 144, Chartres
Applicant: Oscar
Blue, McTaggart, Shaw
Rosenberg
None
Hughes
J. Robison
item be tabled until the Grading
of grading on slopes steeper than
Director Hightower explained that this
item had been tabled at the meeting of
July 13, in order to allow revision of
the plan, which was before the Commis-
sion tonight, recommending that this
Ordinance is revised, due to the amount
35%.
Mrs. Shaw explained that this was not a formal public hearing.
Oscar Robison, 311 W. Acacia, El Segundo, applicant, felt they had met all
the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance.
Alice Hamner, #1 Clipper Road, property owner, explained that she and her
mother would be the occupants of the home and that it would be unfeasible
for them to occupy anything other than a single story home.
The Commission had a brief discussion during which they commented on trying
to preserve the natural contours and on the 20% grade of the proposed
driveway, noting that this is a legal lot of record.
Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion to approve the request for Grading #60,
which was seconded by Mr. McTaggart and carried with the following vote:
RECESS
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg
NOES: Blue, Shaw
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
At 8:55 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
with Mr. McTaggart absent.
P.C. -2- 8/10/76
HEIGHT VARIATION #13 Director Hightower explained that this
GRADING #33 was a request for approval of Grading
7201 Avenida Altisima #33 and an appeal to the staff denial
Applicant: Edward Donovan of Height Variation #13. She reviewed
the background of the request explain-
ing that this matter had been continued
from the meeting of June 22 to allow the applicant to submit revised plans
to reduce the ridgeline of the house and the grading. With the revised
plans, recommendation is for approval subject to submittal of landscaping
and irrigation plans.
Mrs. Shaw explained that this was not a formal public hearing.
Roy Bayer, 2075 Palos Verdes Drive North, Lomita, representing the appli-
cant, was present to answer any questions.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion to approve
Grading #33 and Height Variance #13, which was seconded by Mr. Hughes and
unanimously carried (Mr. McTaggart was absent).
SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT #3
3808 Palos Verdes Drive East
Applicant: J. W. Spray
the staff analysis, and she also
ing that the Permit be approved
staff analysis.
Director Hightower explained that the
applicant has revised his request to
three horses instead of one. She com-
pared the Code requirements to the ap-
plicant's existing use, as shown in
reviewed the required findings, recommend -
subject to the conditions listed in the
Jerry Spray, 3808 Palos Verdes Drive East, applicant, pointed out that he
was bounded on the north by "Q" district property. He explained that his
plans have been revised and that the corral will be closer to his house,
and he discussed the proposed landscaping.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion,which was seconded
by Mr. Hughes, to approve the request subject to the conditions as listed
in the staff report. This motion was then amended by Mr. Rosenberg, said
amendment seconded by Mr. Hughes, to change condition #3 to read ".......
between the horse area, the residences to the south, and the Miraleste
Park and Recreation District." The motion voted on was to approve the re-
quest subject to the following conditions:
1. That the number of large domestic animals permitted be limited
to three, provided that the enclosure meets all the necessary
specifications as set forth in the Code.
2. That plans be submitted for future construction which will in-
clude a path for access from the front of the property, ade-
quate for necessary maintenance of the area.
3. That applicant submit a landscaping plan which will provide for
a planted buffer of trees between the horse area, the residences
to the south, and the Miraleste Park and Recreation District.
This motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: Blue, Hughes, Rosenberg, Shaw
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
ABSTAIN: None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #17 Mr. Weber reviewed the background of
VARIANCE #8 this request, describing the project
5721 West Crestridge and location of buildings, proposed
Applicant: Congregation parking and landscaping, explaining
Ner Tamid the variance requests and recommending
that the grading issue be taken up at
a later time, based on the possibility
that redesign may be necessary. He reviewed the Code Requirement Analysis
shown in the staff report and the View Impact Analysis which was on the
wall, and the general recommendation was that the public hearing be held,
P.C. -3- 8/10/76
that major issues be discussed, and that the hearing be continued to allow
for complete analysis of potential redesign.
Seymour Greben and Art Schoenfeld, appearing on behalf of the Congregation,
described the phases of development, passed out additional material to
the Commission and indicated points on the model of the entire project
which had been set up for the Commission to view. He gave the background
of the project, noting that approval was obtained from the County in 1972.
He pointed out that they read and were not opposed to most of the condi-
tions and findings listed in the staff report. They discussed the possible
parking arrangements between their establishment and the Baptist and Morman
Churches nearby.
Herb Barris, 5902 Wakishaw Place, said that with the new location, many
people will be walking, and he did not feel parking would present a problem.
Joe Agesino, 5725 Mesus Drive, voiced objection to the height variation.
Marshall Kline, 5707 Mistridge, requested that figures be made available
and commented that he prefered a view of trees as opposed to concrete.
Mr. McTaggart returned to the meeting at this point (10:33 p.m.).
Pat Arand, 3731 Mistridge, expressed concern about an already existing
problem being an access route on the school property adjoining her proper-
ty. Mrs. Shaw explained that the City has no jurisdiction on private
property.
As there were no other speakers, the public hearing was closed and Commis-
sion discussion began taking each item separately and reaching a consensus.
The main concern was over the zero (0) sideyard setback, feeling that al-
lowing it would do a disservice to the future neighbor, and that it was
hard to justify on a hardship basis. One of the concerns was the noise
factor. They discussed possibly eliminating one foot on the parking stalls
of each aisle, one foot on each driveway, and one foot on the planter
area, creating an extra five feet and moving the building to have a five-
foot sideyard.
Mr. Cagen asked if the condition relating to joint use agreements be
changed from within 200 yards to within 350 yards.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously
carried, the public hearing was reopened and continued to the September 14
meeting of the Planning Commission.
RECESS At 11:30 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 11:35 with
the same members present.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #18 Director Hightower reviewed the request
28503 Highridge Road explaining that the Conditional Use
Applicant: Don C. Wallace Permit was required for the 95 -foot
high pole itself, and recommending that
the Conditional Use Permit be approved
with the understanding that it is approving the one pole only, and that
staff be requested to prepare a resolution.
Don Wallace, 28503 Highridge, applicant, showed the landscaping plan, and
explained that the primary use was for an amateur station, but that it was
partly used as a commercial station. He pointed out that there were less
than 3 poles per acre and stressed the care he provides keeping the area
green and nicely landscaped.
Gerald Shakner, 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, attorney repre-
senting some of the neighbors in opposition, explained that his clients
had no objection to amateur use, but were objecting to the operation of
commercial use.
Mrs. Shaw explained to him that this was permissable under the Development
Code.
P.C. -4- 8/10/76
Bob Mohr, 28700 Circlet Drive, read a letter he had written on April 19
to Director Hightower objecting to the pole being used as commercial on
residential property. Gary Belda, 5529 Mistridge Drive, concurred with
Mr. Mohr.
DeeDee Hicks, 6120 Skymist, and Larry Tumes, president of Mesa Palos Verdes
Homeowners Association, expressed concerns regarding the height and the
abundance of poles existing on the property.
All the speakers expressed concern about possible expansion to this pole
if it is approved.
The public hearing was closed.
The Commission expressed concern and questioned the applicant about future
expansion of the pole, and Mr. Wallace asked them to review how nicely he
has maintained the poles and area over the past years, and he read to the
Commission a letter he had received from Mr. Howard Day congratulating
him for the open space he has preserved and how nicely he has maintained
it.
The Commission was still concerned and felt that there should be some re-
striction in the Conditional Use Permit to prevent proliferation of the
pole.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried,
Conditional Use Permit #18 was continued to the meeting of August 19, 1976.
COMMISSION REPORT Mrs. Shaw reminded the Commissioners
about the joint meeting between the
Commission and City Council to be held
Wednesday, August 11, 1976a -,/?d
Mrs. Shaw also said she felt that at least one member of the Commission
should attend the City Council meetings to represent the Planning Commis-
sion, particularly when the Council is considering an item which is
Commission related.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:00 a.m., it was moved, seconded,
and carried to adjourn the meeting to
August 19, 1976.
P.C. -5- 8/10/76