PC MINS 19821109X03
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
November 9, 1982
The meeting was called to order at 7:43 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe.
PRESENT: McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
LATE ARRIVAL: Hughes
ABSENT: Brown
Also present were Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt and Assistant
Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Dino Putrino.
CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Mr. McNulty, seconded by
Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was
unanimously passed, thereby approving:
A) the minutes of the meeting of October 12, 1982; B) a six-month time ex-
tension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 12431/Conditional Use Permit No. 64;
and C) a six-month time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 57.
VARIANCE NO. 85 Mr. Putrino said this request was for
4465 Miraleste Drive a garage with a room addition above in
Landowner/Applicant: Rumery the front yard setback. He said at the
meeting of September 28 the Commission
discussed several solutions to the
vehicular egress visibility problem. He said the Public Works Department
has become aware of the hazard and is taking appropriate methods to remedy
the visibility problem. Staff recommended approval pursuant to the findings
in the draft resolution. Mr. Putrino noted the following corrections to the
draft resolution: page 1, line 2, should read "...into the front yard...";
Section 5, delete "subject to the conditions of the attached Exhibit W.";
and eliminate Exhibit "A".
By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was re -opened.
John Rumery, 4465 Miraleste Drive, spoke briefly about the vehicular egress
visibility issue.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. McNulty proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution
No. 82-28, as amended this evening, thereby approving Variance No. 85.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Brown, Hughes
Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen calendar days.
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 629 Mr. Putrino said this request was to
7106 Camino Pequeno allow grading into a 50 -percent slope
Landowner: Ronald Stephens for spa equipment. He said the pro -
Applicant: Don Hendrickson posed project would allow removal of
5.3 cubic yards of soil and the con-
struction of a retaining wall in order
to create an area within the slope to house spa equipment. He said there
are other areas on the subject lot where the equipment could be placed
without constructing on the slope and staff, therefore, recommended denial
of the project. He said subsequent to preparing the staff report, staff
became aware that most of the construction for the spa equipment has been
completed except for the retaining wall. He said plans for the spa equip-
ment were approved on August 18, but that the plans did not indicate the
slope conditions. He said this came to the attention of the City because
the County inspector required a detailed retaining wall plan and City
approval. He noted that when this grading application was submitted, staff
was unaware that construction had already taken place. He said the new
information did not change the staff recommendation.
Mr. Hughes arrived at 7:5.5 p.m. and for his benefit, Mr. Hinchliffe summar-
ized the staff report.
Don Hendrickson, 1032 Via Ventana, Palos Verdes Estates, said they were not
aware that the slope area was a problem. He said putting the equipment in
the slope eliminated having to remove a tree. He said aesthetically the
present location is more appealing than anywhere else, as it is the least
conspicuous location on the site.
Mr. McTaggart was concerned that an architect and anyone with a contractor's
license would not know that a detailed plan was required -for the retaining
wall.
Mr. Hendrickson said they did not realize that the wall would retain more
than three feet. He said the excavation was necessary in order to put all
the lines in.
Mr. McNulty was also surprised that licensed contractors would not under-
stand the slope problems.
Mr. Hinchliffe said he would not have a problem approving the location of
the equipment if the pad is raised, but that he had difficulty if the wall
exceeds three feet six inches.
Mr. Hughes said the slope appeared to be much more than 50 percent, that it
was nearly 100 percent based on the information given. He agreed with Mr.
Hinchliffe and understood the resident's desire to move it to the corner.
He said from a practical point of view, to maximize yard space, it made
sense to create this area for the equipment.
Mr. McTaggart said while this was not a major project, the Code is very
specific about slopes exceeding 35 percent. He said it is not necessary
for the equipment to be located where proposed and, therefore, he could not
vote to approve the request. He also thought the project would be less
obtrusive if turned the other way.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to approve Grading
Application No. 629 subject to the conditions that the necessary retaining
wall be kept to a height less than three feet six inches and its location
be as shown.
The above motion carried, with Mr. McTaggart dissenting.
Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen calendar days.
11/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
2
DRAFT ANTENNA ORDINANCE Mr. Shepherd said at its September 28
meeting the Commission directed a sub-
committee to work with staff on the
draft ordinance and return it to the Commission. He said the draft ordi-
nance presented this evening reflects the work of the subcommittee and staff.
Staff recommended that the Commission review and discuss the draft ordinance
and direct staff to incorporate any further revisions and/or additions.
Commission discussion ensued, and the following revisions were made to the
draft ordinance:
Page 1, change title to read "...regulations pursuant to
earth stations and commercial radio, television
transmission, and relay towers"
Page 1, 16.04.405, line 2, delete "large"
Page 1, 16.04.765, line 2, "megahertz" is one word
Page 4, 17.41.030 A., add period after "line", delete
"abutting a residential district, public property
or public street"
Page 5, first paragraph (C.), change to read "...twenty-
five (25) percent..."
Page 5, 17.41.040 K., line 3, add comma after "line", delete
"abutting a residential district, public property
or public street"
Page 6, first paragraph (A.), change to read "Such design
requirements..."
By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried,
the Commission directed staff to revise the draft ordinance as outlined
above and begin formal processing. The Commission requested that the re-
vised draft copy be sent to the Commissioners for review prior to submittal
to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
11/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
At 8:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
November 23, 1982, at 7:30 p.m.
-3-