PC MINS 19791113M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
November 13, 1979
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner
Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Karen Heit.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by
Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of October
9, 1979 were approved with the following amendments: page 3, paragraph 6,
line 1, should read "...concern about access when the adjacent Lots 4...";
and page 4, paragraph 13, should read "Mr. Hinchliffe said ...... input of a
cursory review."
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of October 23, 1979 were approved with the fol-
lowing amendments: page 2, paragraph 12, line 2, should read "...descend
from Palos Verdes Drive to..."; page 4, 3rd full paragraph, line 6, should
read "...lot size 13,000 square feet; and the Tierra Alta ..... lot size
10,000 square..."; and page 5, paragraph 2, line 19, should read "or direct
viewing..." —
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 53 Mr. Hughes said he and Mrs. Bacharach
5975 Armaga Spring Road had spent some time looking at the
Applicant/Landowner: Mt. Olive Palos Verdes tennis courts. He sug-
Lutheran Church gested that they discuss their comments
later in the meeting under Commission
Reports. As there were no objections
to continue this item to the meeting of December 11, 1979, per the appli-
cant's request, Mr. Hinchliffe so ordered.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11032 Ms. Heit said the request was for a
Palos Verdes Drive East near lot line adjustment of the common lot
Via Subida line between 6110 Via Subida (lot 2)
Landowner: Kenneth Battram and 4525 Palos Verdes Drive East
Applicant: Clark Leonard (lot 3). She said the applicant has
indicated that the purpose is -to add
to lot 2 an area that is topographi-
cally different from lot 3. She said the adjustment would also potentially
create an area suitable for development on lot 2, which currently contains
only a tennis court built before the City's incorporation. She said in
order to stay within the Code, a portion of the Palos Verdes Drive East
right-of-way would need to be vacated, and that a small portion of lot 3
which extends into the right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated to the
City. She said the adjustment without the street vacation would create a
substandard lot 3. She explained that a request for street vacation was
filed with the Public Works Department on December 22, 1978, but that no
action has yet been taken because of the Palos Verdes Drive East right-of-
way study. She said the Public Works Department has received proposals for
the study but has yet to sign a contract, and explained that this vacation
request and others in the area will be given priority status in the study.
She said the Public Works Department does not see any particular problems
with vacating the subject right-of-way, that the area in question is mostly
slope that has been landscaped and maintained by the owner, and that the
City has no plans for expansion or use of the right-of-way. She said the
applicant understands the contingency of the public right-of-way vacation.
Staff recommended approval of the parcel map, subject to the conditions of
the draft resolution which include that approval is contingent upon vaca-
tion of the right-of-way.
Mrs. Bacharach was concerned that condition #5 of Exhibit "A" was not speci-
fic enough.
Dick Leonard, employee and representative of Mr. Battram, said the City
Council adopted a resolution for a study of the entire Palos Verdes Drive
East right -df -way. He said in this area widening Palos Verdes Drive would
require a 50 -foot high retaining wall. He said the house was 55 feet above
the street. He said the vacation would probably be something in the order
of 45 feet, but they could not indicate how much vacation on the map until
they know for sure how much there will be. He said the Public Works Director
had indicated it would be at least 25 feet, but probably more. He said
this parcel map could not be finalized without the vacation taking place.
He said they were trying to get through this process now to save time when
the vacation occurs.
Mr. McTaggart said he felt uncomfortable acting on this at this time and
felt the parcel map should be processed after the vacation is obtained.
Dr. Brown said he understood Mr. McTaggart's concern but pointed out that
the parcel map approval would not be valid unless this condition is met.
Mrs. Bacharach said she felt comfortable with the request at this time, but
felt that condition #5 should be stronger. She felt approval should be
tied to a minimum vacation size'in order to create a legal lot.
Mr. Hughes asked about the time limit for final map approval.
Ms. Heit said the time limit could be extended if necessary.
Mr. Hughes said he would not want to force a decision by the City Council
in order to accommodate this parcel map.
Mr. Hinchliffe noted that this has been pending Planning Commission review
since June of 1978.
Mr. Weber explained that staff had been waiting for a decision on the vaca-
tion which they had assumed would be done by 46AL2''.
Mrs. Bacharach said the request sounded like the kind of thing the Commis-
sion would approve and did not see any reason to put off their decision
until after the study was complete.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution
No. 79-18, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 11032, subject to the condi-
tions in Exhibit "A", with condition #5 amended to read as follows:
"Approval of the final map is subject to completion
and approval of the requested (12/22/78) right-of-
way vacation and dedication by the City Council,
and lot 3 shall be a minimum size of 20,000 square
feet."
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, Hinchliffe
NOES: McTaggart
ABSENT: None
Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen calendar days.
11/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 54 Ms. Heit said the request was for ex -
5504 West Crestridge Road pansion of the Palos Verdes Community
Landowner: Palos Verdes Community Arts facility which involves the addi-
Arts Association tion of a single story kitchen con -
Applicant: Lowell Lusk and Assoc. necting the ceramics building to the
main building, an enclosed arts patio,
and a classroom/printshop building._
She said the existing site was 56,915 square feet with about 10 percent
building coverage, and she described the existing improvements. She ex-
plained how the existing center operates, the current enrollment, and the
hours that the classes take place. In addition to regularly schedtled
classes, she said there were workshops and exhibitions. She said the in-
creased classroom area could provide space for up to 250 additional stu-
dents annually. She said if the project is approved, the classroom level
will be able to accommodate 100 people in a lecture setting or 40 people
in a painting or drawing situation. She referred to the chart in the
staff report showing average daily attendance. She discussed the Code
considerations and said the primary areas of concern were parking, loading
area, and lighting. She referred to the chart in the staff report on park-
ing and said the center cannot expand the parking area, as the construction
of the classroom/printshop building will effectively use all of the remain-
ing developable land. She said the 68 existing stalls were the minimum
size and were placed to maximize the number of stalls. She said off-site
parking would have to accommodate any parking overflow, that there was
street parking available on both sides of Crestridge, and that there were
reciprocal parking agreements with both Peninsula Baptist Church and Con-
gregation Ner Tamid. Staff suggested that the center be allowed to con-
tinue to use the reciprocal parking agreements, as the expected daily
traffic increase was not expected to greatly impact the existing parking
facility. She described the existing loading dock. Staff recommended
a 6 -foot slumpstone wall for the enclosure of both the loading dock and
trash bin area be constructed within the vicinity of the existing loading
dock, and that the enclosure be constructed in such a mariner that no more
than one parking space be lost. Re lighting, staff suggested that any
future additional lighting be subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning, that no lights be mounted above the eave line of any building,
and that lights be tilted or shielded to avoid viewing from residences
located on Mistridge Drive. She said the center's unique physical location
provides adequate buffering to surrounding residential uses, but that the
stark facade of the classroom building requires landscaping to soften the
affect from Crenshaw Boulevard. Staff recommended approval of the project
subject to the conditions of the draft resolution.
Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the agreements for reciprocal parking
and asked if they were non -revocable.
Ms. Heit said they were cooperative agreements and were revocable.
Mr. Hinchliffe explained public hearing procedures and opened the public
hearing.
Skip Lusk, architect, answered questions of the Commission.
Robert Norman, Facilities Chairman of the Arts Association, was concerned
,about condition #8 which would restrict the use of the site.
Ms. Heit said the purpose of the condition was to limit the type of acti-
vity allowed to take place in the classrooms, as staff did not feel it
should become a place of general public assembly.
Mr. Hughes asked if they have considered using the now vacant surplus
classrooms at,nearby schools, caused by decreasing enrollment.
Harriet Miller, director of the Art Center, said they do take art into the
schools, but have not investigated the use of available school space for
their purposes. She said they were trying to coordinate the art programs
with the art gallery, etc., in one facility.
11/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
Mr. Lusk explained that previously everything had been scattered throughout -
the area and that they have now consolidated everything together on this
site. He said from an operational point of view it was far more convenient
to have it all under one roof.
Mr. Hughes felt with the decreasing school enrollment and empty classrooms
it should be investigated. He said it appears that the center has now
built to the maximum on the site and that in five years they will be looking
again for expansion and will not be able to do it. He said there was an
existing parking problem which was not going to disappear. He felt now
seemed a good opportunity to obtain additional space elsewhere.
Ms. Miller said having one facility was not only for the coordination of
art activities, but for their need for special equipment and nude models,
etc., for use by the students.
Mr. Norman said four to five years ago they finally had enough money to
purchase this site and that at the time they could not afford to build
more than they did. He said they are able to build the rest of the build-
ings because of fund-raisers, that they are a tax exempt foundation and
wish to stay that way. He did not feel it was practical to go into public
schools as it was not the nature of their business.
Ms. Miller said there would be no more than three classes at one time and
that there would be only two staff cars there on a regular basis.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car-
ried, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hughes said his only concern was that there were a lot of facilities in
the community already that appeared to be going essentially unused or un-
occupied. He felt suitable arrangements could be made. He was concerned
with the need for building additional large classroom facilities. He was
also concerned that there were parking difficulties in the area now and
felt the City could begin to expect conflicts before much longer.
Dr. Brown was not sure the parking problems could be solved with reciprocal
agreements. He said lighting was a concern of his and that he agreed with
staff about landscaping. He had no other problems with the proposed project
on this site.
Mr. McTaggart agreed with some of the comments made by Mr. Hughes, particu-
larly regarding the parking. He said people will not want to use the faci-
lity if they have to park a great distance away. He felt condition 08
should be changed.
Mrs. Bacharach said condition #8 only restricted the center classroom. She
said this facility was a valuable addition to the community. She felt the
institutions on Crestr,idge should coordinate with each other when functions
will be taking place, perhaps form an association. She was concerned about
the parking space lines in the parking area, and felt that since there was
a parking problem, there should be very clear lines marking those spaces.
Re condition #8, Ms. Heit said it was written specifically because the new
building will have a very large capacity.
Director Hightower said the kind of thing staff was trying to preclude was
the situation the City has come into with other buildings like churches,
with dances, etc. She said this type of use changes the use of the faci-
lity, and that the hours also change. She said staff was concerned about
parking, and explained that any change in use requires a conditional use
permit.
Mr. McTaggart said other uses may take place which go beyond the scope of
the proposed use of this site which may impact the neighborhood.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Reso-
lution No. 79-19, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 54, subject to the
conditions in Exhibit "A", with the addition of condition #9 as follows:
11/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
0 1 0
"The parking stalls shall be restriped and main-
tained to the satisfaction Of the Director of
Planning."
Mr. Hughes said he still felt further investigation into other facilities
in the community should be done. He said the City has an obligation to
see that existing facilities are properly utilized. He felt this was not
good planning.
Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
NOES: Hughes
ABSENT: None
Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen calendar days.
At 9:08 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 9:17 p.m.
with the same members present.
VARIANCE NO. 41 Mr. Weber said the variance request
APPEAL OF GRADING NO. 396 was for a 10 -foot high chain link
4140 Lorraine Road tennis court fence to be located with-
Applicant/Landowner: Robert Hansen in a side yard and rear yard setback
area. He said the grading request was
to grade a total of 800 cubic yards to
create a level area in the rear of the subject property in order to accom-
modate a tennis court. He said the entire court area would be surrounded
by several downslope retaining walls ranging up to 15 feet in height. He
said after analysis of the application and grading plan, staff denied
Grading No. 396 for the reasons stated in the staff report. He reviewed
the four required findings for approval of a variance and the staff re-
sponses to each of them, as stated in the staff report. Staff recommended
denial ofithe Appeal of Grading No. 396 based on the reasons listed in the
staff report and further recommended denial of Variance No. 41 based on
the inability to make all of the required findings, per the draft resolution.
Mrs. Bacharach felt this was a "Catch 22" situation, as if the tennis court
was moved out of the setback areas, even more grading would be required for
its construction.
Mr. Weber said in staff's opinion this was not a lot that could accommodate
a tennis court. He agreed that the court could be constructed to meet the
setbacks but would require more grading. He said to his knowledge this was
the only plan that has been submitted. He said staff has looked at this
request very closely and could find no solution which would meet the Code.
Public hearing was opened.
Bob Hansen, 4140 Lorraine, said they have a sloping lot and, in talking to
his architect, there were two possible areas for the construction. He said
as proposed the court would not be obtrusive to anyone. He said if this
was a flat lot, the court would stick out like a sore thumb. He discussed
other tennis courts and said this would not be out of character with the
neighborhood. He pointed out that there was no neighborhood opposition
because as proposed the court will have no impact on anyone.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously
carried, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Bacharach said she could not make finding #2 but could probably make
the other ones.
Mr. McTaggart said he could not make findings #1 and #2.
11/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
Dr. Brown said he could not make findings #1 and #2, and was not sure he
could make finding #4.
Mr. Hughes said he had no trouble making finding #2, as there were other
tennis courts existing in the City not only in the setbacks but right up
to the property line. He also felt there was a buffer in this area. He
said he was having difficulty with finding #1, as being a hillside lot was
not extraordinary.
Mr. Hinchliffe had similar feelings. He said he could not make finding #1.
He was not sure about finding #2, as -he did not feel other tennis courts
were reasons to grant this variance.
Mr. McTaggart agreed and said dust because there was an exception somewhere
in the City does not form the basis for approving every variance that comes
along.
Re the reasons in the staff report for denial of the grading application,
Dr. Brown agreed with all five.
Mrs. Bacharach said the project does exceed the height and number of walls
and the grading is excessive beyond the primary use of the lot.
Mr. McTaggart said he personally agreed that it would be a nice place for
a tennis court, but felt that at least four of the five reasons for denial
were accurate.
Mr. Hughes agreed with some of the reasons.
Dr. Brown asked about constructing a small court on the lot.
Mr. Weber said if it meets the grading ordinance and Code requirements there
would be no problem.
Mrs. Bacharach said the tennis court was located in an,extremely buffered
area which makes it exceptional.
Mr. Hughes said based on the buffering he could make that finding.
Mrs. Bacharach also said that view preservation was an exceptional circum-
stance in this case.
Mr. McTaggart said he was able to make finding #1. Therefore, it was the
consensus of the Commission that finding #1 could be made.
It was the consensus of the Commission that finding #2 could not be made.
Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution
No. 79-20, denying Variance No. 41, based on the Commission's inability to
make finding #2, as presented in the Resolution, and the Resolution was
amended as follows: Section #1 and Section #4 were deleted.
Mr. Hughes felt there was evidence of similar situations within the City.
The majority of the Commission could make finding #1, #3, and #4, but not #2.
Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
NOES: Hughes
ABSENT: None
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and carried, with Mr.
Hughes dissenting, the Appeal of Grading No. 396 was denied for the follow-
ing reasons:
1) Project exceeds the number of allowed downslope
retaining walls.
11/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-
1 0 0
2) Project exceeds the allowed maximum height of
downslope retaining walls.
3) Fill exceeds five (5) feet.
4) Grading is excessive beyond that necessary for
the permitted primary use of the lot.
Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen calendar days.
STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower said the City
Council approved the subregion plan-
ning study and that it will take five
to six months instead of four months. She said there will be three meetings
with the Planning Commission at various times, that the Commission will
recommend to the City Council. She said the consultant has not signed the
contract yet, that it was to be sent either today or tomorrow.
In response to a question by Mrs. Bacharach, Director Hightower said the
Coastal Plan would be before the State Coastal Commission on November 19,
that it would be the second item on that agenda. she said the meeting
will begin at 1:00 and be held at the Airport Marina Hotel.
Director Hightower said she still does not have the subdivision ordinance.
She said this will be going to the City Council, and there will be two
alternatives for processing subdivisions. She said the Commission will no
longer review lot line adjustments unless appealed once the new ordinance
is adopted.
COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes said he and Mrs. Bacharach
looked at the Palos Verdes tennis
court lighting and, based on that,
felt the proposed church lighting at Mt. Olive Lutheran Church would be no
more obtrusive than some of the other church facilities and, in some cases,
less obtrusive. He said it appears that the lights can be adequately
shielded and would probably be less obtrusive than anything else the Com-
mission has approved.
Mrs. Bacharach said she was very impressed.
ADJOURNMENT At 11:00 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
November 27, 1979, at 7:30 p.m.
11/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-