01/08/2002 Planning Commission Agenda January, 2002, 01/08/2002, Planning, Commission, Meeting, Agenda, Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She explained that staff could not make three of the required findings for the height variation to allow the second story addition. She stated that staff felt the proposed second story addition would significantly impair the ocean view from 4343 Dauntless, the proposed design was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and the bulk and mass of the proposed structure was also not compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that the proposed first story addition complies with the development code and could therefore be approved. She concluded by stating that staff recommends the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice, Height Variation 938 and approve Site Plan Review 9209 with conditions. The 01/08/2002 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
January 8 , 2002

 

DISCLAIMER

The following Planning Commission agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the Planning Commission Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department area at City Hall.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

** CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS


This agenda has been prepared for the orderly progression of Planning Commission business.  The Planning Commission is very interested in hearing your comments and encourages your participation in the meeting.  These agenda instructions are intended to familiarize you with how the meeting will be conducted, what to expect and how to most effectively participate in the process.

Staff Reports

Detailed staff reports on the items contained in this agenda are available from the Planning Department the Friday before the meeting and are posted for public viewing immediately prior to the meeting in the hallway outside the chambers.  The Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department is located at City Hall at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes.  The Department's public counter hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday.  The telephone number is (310) 377-6008.

Organization of the Agenda

The Planning Commission agenda is divided into the following sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items, which, unless a request has been received from the public, a Commission member or Staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the Planning Commission.
Continued Business:  This section consists of items that were held over from a previous Planning Commission meetings and for which a decision has not yet been made.
Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed public hearings which have not been previously heard by the Commission.
New Business: This section is for items that do not require a noticed public hearing.  Pursuant to adopted Planning Commission procedure, the Commission will, except under exceptional circumstances and with the consent of the majority of the Commission, adjourn its meetings on or before 12:00 a.m. and not consider new business items after 11:00 p.m., with any unfinished business being continued to the next regular, adjourned, or special meeting.
Audience Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda.  Comments must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.  Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Audience Comments.  If action by the Commission is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda, or referred to Staff, as determined by the Commission.

Presentation of Agenda Items

Unless the Chairperson in his or her discretion should direct otherwise, the order of the presentation is generally as follows:

(a) Presentation of staff report, including any environmental analysis or recommendation.
(b) Questions of staff by members of Planning Commission.
(c) Public hearing opened.
(d) Presentation of the applicant(s) or appellant(s).
(e) Presentation of persons in favor of the requested action.
(f) Presentation of persons in opposition to the requested action.
(g) Rebuttal comments by the applicant(s) or appellant(s), if requested.
(h) Closing comments by staff.
(i) Public hearing closed.

 

How to Speak on an Item

 In order to speak on an item, please completely fill out a Request to Speak form and return it to the recording secretary.  These half-sheet forms (which are printed on colored paper) are available on the table in the hallway outside the chambers or from the recording secretary, who is seated on the left-hand side of the dais (the table with the blue skirt at the front of the meeting room), next to the light timer.  Requests to speak on an item must be submitted to the recording secretary prior to the completion of the remarks of the first speaker on the item.  No request forms to speak on the particular item will be accepted after that time.

 After your name is called by the recording secretary, please approach the lectern and speak clearly into the microphone.  The height of the microphone may be adjusted by hand if necessary.  Before beginning your comments on the item, please state your name and address for the record.

 The length of time that each person is allowed to speak on individual items is determined by the Chairman and is usually based on the number of speakers on the particular item.  Normally, the applicants and appellants are limited to a five (5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal (if requested). All other persons are generally limited to three (3) minutes per person. 

 Submittal of Written Correspondence

 You may submit written evidence to the Planning Commission through the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and request that the Commission receive copies of the submitted materials prior to the meeting.  However, such written evidence must be submitted by 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.  If any written evidence is submitted after the Monday noon deadline, the Commission will not consider it at the meeting.  However, it will be distributed as part of the agenda packet for any forthcoming meeting, provided that the item is continued.  This does not prevent you from reading written comments that are submitted late into the record as part of oral comments, in accordance with the time limits discussed above.

Conduct at the Meeting

The Planning Commission has adopted a set of rules for conduct during Planning Commission meetings. Although it is a very rare occurrence, the Chairperson may order from the Planning Commission Chambers any person(s) who commit the following acts with respect to a regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Commission or any member thereof, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
3. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Chairperson which shall include an order to be seated or refrain from addressing the Commission.
4. Any other interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.

Your cooperation in making the Planning Commission meeting run smoothly and fairly for all participants in greatly appreciated.

 


BEGINNING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

AGENDA

     RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

   TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002

            FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING
7:00 PM


SCHEDULING NOTES

 

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY  PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM.  NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

 

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

 

    NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01


 

CALL TO ORDER:                                           

 

FLAG SALUTE:                                         

 

ROLL CALL:

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

 


COMMUNICATIONS:  


                                 

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

 

NONE.

 

Staff:

 

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR: 


        


1.MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2001



2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 221, et. al. – TIME EXTENSION: 31270

Palos Verdes Drive West,  Mrs. Claudia Krikorian (applicant).  (AM)


 

Requested Action:  Allow a one year time extension on the project entitlements approved by the Planning Commission on December 12, 2001.

 

Recommendation:  Approve the applicants’ request for a one year time extension, from the date of expiration (December 12, 2001) via Minute Order, thereby setting the expiration date as December 12, 2002, with all conditions of approval remaining in full force and effect.

 


RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE

(regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:



CONTINUED BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)



PUBLIC HEARINGS:


 


3.GRADING PERMIT NO. 2191: Larry Peha (applicant) and Mr. and Mrs. Heru Wiredja (owner), 3815 Palos Verdes Drive South (AM).

 

Requested Action:  Consider amending Condition No. 19 of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36 adopted by the Planning Commission at its October 9th meeting.

 

Recommendation:  Pursuant to the applicant’s request, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the January 22, 2002 meeting.

 


NEW BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS)


                         

 


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:


Staff

4.        PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2002.

Commission


ADJOURNMENT:


 

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,

January 22, 2002, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.

 


 

AGENDA

     RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

   TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002

            FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING
7:00 PM


   SCHEDULING NOTES

 

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY  PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM.  NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

 

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

 

    NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01


 

CALL TO ORDER:                                           

 

FLAG SALUTE:                                         

 

ROLL CALL:

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

 


COMMUNICATIONS:


                                   

 

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

 

NONE.

 

Staff:

 

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:


          

1.   MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2001


DRAFT

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

DECEMBER 11, 2001


CALL TO ORDER

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

 

FLAG SALUTE

 

Commissioner Paulson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

ROLL CALL

 

Present:            Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Chairman Lyon.

 

Absent:            None

 

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Yu, Assistant Planner Luckert, and Recording Secretary Peterson.

 


APPROVAL OF AGENDA


 

Without objection, the agenda was approved as presented.

 


COMMUNICATIONS


 

Director/Secretary Rojas distributed one letter regarding a past project to the Planning Commission.  He also reported that the Planning Commission e-mail site was now operation and all e-mail sent to pc@rpv.com would go directly to the Commissioner’s private e-mail sites.

 

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that at their last meeting the City Council had heard the tentative tract map request from JCC Homes and continued the item to January 31, 2002.  He also reported on the process the City Council would be using to recruit and appoint new Commission Committee members.

 

Director/Secretary Rojas congratulated Commissioner Paulson on his recent appointment to the Library Board and thanked him for his input and support.

 

Commissioner Paulson read his letter of resignation from the Planning Commission, which would take affect on December 12, 2001 at 5:00 p.m.

 


CONSENT CALENDAR


 

1.               Minutes of November 13, 2001

 

Commissioner Vannorsdall added a word to a sentence on page 11 of the minutes.

 

Commissioner Cartwright noted a typo on page 9 of the minutes and also felt the last two statements he made on the page might be redundant.

 

There being no objection, the minutes were approved as amended, (6-0).

 

2.                  Minutes of November 15, 2001

                       

Commissioner Long noted a typo on page 4 of the minutes.  He also felt that on page 5 there was a comment made by Commissioner Paulson that was not included.

 

Commissioner Paulson suggested adding a sentence to Commissioner Long’s statement on page 5 that would indicate he had made a previous comment.

 

There being no objection the minutes were approved as amended, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Cartwright abstaining since he was absent from the meeting.

 

3.            Minutes of November 27, 2001

 

Commissioner Mueller noted a typo on page 2 of the minutes.

 

Commissioner Cartwright felt there were comments that he had made regarding item no. 3 that were not included in the minutes, and perhaps should be added.  Specifically, he felt on page 3 of the minutes there was a comment that should be added, as well as on pages 4 and 21.

 

Commissioner Long noted a typo on page 14 of the minutes.

 

There being no objection, the minutes were approved as amended, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining since he was absent from the meeting.

 


PUBLIC HEARINGS


 


4.Height Variation Permit No. 938: Mr. and Mrs. Jefffrey Younggren 4362 Exultant Drive

 

Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report.  She explained that staff could not make three of the required findings for the height variation to allow the second story addition.  She stated that staff felt the proposed second story addition would significantly impair the ocean view from 4343 Dauntless, the proposed design was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and the bulk and mass of the proposed structure was also not compatible with the neighborhood.  She stated that the proposed first story addition complies with the development code and could therefore be approved.  She concluded by stating that staff recommends the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice, Height Variation 938 and approve Site Plan Review 9209 with conditions.

 

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

 

Jeff Younggren 4362 Exultant Drive (applicant) asked the Planning Commission to consider his position on the height variation.  He distributed photographs and explained that he understood the issues raised by the planning staff and stated that he had letters from all of the surrounding neighbors in support of the project.  He stated that this project had the support of the neighborhood and the opposition was from the staff.  He pointed out that there was a house up the street on Dauntless, only six houses away, with a configuration almost identical to the one he was proposing on a lot that is substantially smaller.  He also pointed out a house four houses down the hill that was 3,400 square feet.  He therefore felt that proposed home met the neighborhood compatibility guidelines.  He also noted several residences that had either submitted plans or would soon submit plans to the City for additions to their own properties.  He felt this was an indication that the neighborhood was in transition.  He stated that most of his property was developable property where many of his neighbors had property on hillsides that was not developable.  He felt that the proposed home fit very nicely onto his large lot and was compatible with the neighborhood. 

 

Chairman Lyon explained that it was staff’s job to interpret the code as written and make the judgment as to whether the proposed project meets the criteria for approval.  

 

Mr. Younggren understood staff’s job, however he felt that the staff report incorrectly stated the size of many existing homes in the neighborhood.

 

Commissioner Cartwright agreed that there may be some room for argument in terms of size and scale in regards to neighborhood compatibility.  He asked if Mr. Younggren had gone to the home at 4343 Dauntless to see what the view impairment would be to that home. 

 

Mr. Younggren stated that he had gone to the property and looked at the proposed view impairment.  He felt that there was a 15 to 20 percent impairment on the view but there were views from other areas of the property.

 

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Younggren if he would consider any other option in the design of his project that would minimize the view impairment from 43434 Dauntless Drive.

 

Mr. Younggren answered that the designer tried to be as careful as he could in regards to the neighbor’s views as well as keeping the design compatible with the neighborhood. 

 

Chairman Lyon asked if the structure sizes in Table 2 of the staff report included the garage area.

 

Assistant Planner Yu answered that the original building permits did not include the garage size in the square footage therefore she added 360 square feet, the area of a code required garage space, to the size of the homes.

 

Commissioner Long asked if the neighbor at 4343 Dauntless Drive had plans before the City for a second story addition.

 

Assistant Planner Yu stated that the owner at 4343 Dauntless Drive has submitted plans to the City for a second story addition.

 

Chairman Lyon asked if the compatibility analysis was limited to the ten closest homes.

 

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the code states the proposal must be compatible with the immediate neighborhood and the guidelines mention the ten closest homes, but it could be more or less.  Staff has tried to be consistent over the years by limiting the analysis to the 10 closest homes, unless special circumstances warrant something different.

 

Gary Lane 500 S. Sepulveda Blvd Manhattan Beach stated he was the designer of the project.  He explained that in designing the addition he took into account the views from the neighbors home.  He stated that by keeping the garage on the low side and putting the second story addition on that low side, the existing ridgeline was 4 feet lower than the existing second story.  He stated that one of his goals was to keep the architectural appearance so that it blends into the neighborhood.  He did think he could lower the proposed roofline one to two feet if that would help make the project more compatible with the neighborhood.  

 

---------------- explained that he also owns the house at 4343 Dauntless Drive.  He stated that he just recently met the Younnggrens and has no prior relationship with them and he has no objections to the proposed project.  He stated that the view impact on his property on Dauntless Drive was really just a sliver of his view.  He discussed the houses in his neighborhood that had recently had a second story addition to their property and acknowledged that he too would like to add a second story onto his home.  He felt that the Younggren’s addition would add to the beauty of the neighborhood and add to property values. 

 

Commissioner Long asked ----- if he felt the proposed addition created a significant view impact of the ocean.

 

------------------------- stated that he would have a panoramic view of the ocean except in areas where there was overgrown foliage.  He felt this proposed addition created an impact on only a sliver of his ocean view. 

 

Commissioner Long explained that if this second story addition were approved, it would not mean that the second story addition at 4343 Dauntless Drive would also be approved.

 

------- understood that.

 

Commissioner Cartwright disagreed that the view impairment from 4343 Dauntless Drive would be only a sliver of the view. 

 

Mr. ------------------------ explained that most of the impact would be of the view from the front porch area, an area he rarely stands in to look at the view. 

 

Commissioner Paulson agreed with Commissioner Cartwright, that much more than a sliver of a view would be lost. 

 

Commissioner Cartwright felt it was quite admirable that there was no opposition to this proposal from the neighbors.  However, he explained that the Planning Commission was bound by the Development Code and the fact that there is no opposition does not change the fact that there is a view impairment. 

 

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

 

Chairman Lyon stated that he had visited the properties and agreed that the view impact could not be considered a sliver.  He felt that the obstruction may be about 10 percent of the view, however he felt that whether or not that view impact was significant was in the eyes of the beholder. 

 

Commissioner Paulson stated that he would like to see the issue continued to a date certain, the house flagging redone with the ridgeline reduced by two feet, and the owner and architect consider design options to further minimize the view impacts. 

 

Commissioner Long explained that the Development Code is not just to protect the neighbors but represents the judgment of the City as a whole and is designed to protect the City as a whole.  He felt Commissioner Paulson’s idea for a continuance was a good one.       

 

Commissioner Cartwright stated that there are many neighborhoods in transition in the City that present a difficulty to the Planning Commission.  He stated that he drove around the neighborhood several times and it was clear that the neighborhood was in transition.  He gave several addresses to the staff and asked staff to research the size of those homes.  Commissioner Cartwright felt the view impact was significant since almost all of the view would be taken away from the home on Dauntless Drive.  He stated he could not make findings 4 and 5, yet he would like to see a neighborhood’s desire to improve itself.  He hoped the applicant would be responsive to the proposal to try to lower the ridgeline and look for ways to minimize the view impact from 4343 Dauntless Drive. 

 

Commissioner Mueller expressed concern regarding the homes to the west and below the property.  He stated there were a significant number of homes close to the development that he felt should be included when discussing impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.

 

Chairman Lyon asked staff if they had met with the applicant to discuss different ways to improve the view situation.

 

Assistant Planner Yu stated that staff had no done that because the applicant did not want to revise the proposed project. 

 

Chairman Lyon asked staff if there was a reasonable probability that an accommodation could be made to the design that would satisfy the concerns discussed.

 

Assistant Planner Yu felt there could be ways to alleviate some of the view concerns.

 

Commissioner Long asked if there were any time constraints associated with the Permit Streamlining Act.

 

Assistant Planner Yu answered that a decision had to be made prior to January 1 or an extension granted by the applicant.

 

Chairman Lyon re-opened the public hearing.

 

Mr. Younggren stated that he would be willing to grant an extension.  He also stated he would look at some type of redesign that would lower the ridgeline and minimize the view impact from 4343 Dauntless Drive.  Regarding the homes to the west and below, he stated he could produce letters of support from those neighbors.

 

Commissioner Long commended Mr. Younggren for the support he has received from his neighbors, however noted that the Planning Commission still had to make the required findings for the project. 

 

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Paulson moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 22, 2002, and direct the applicant to look at a redesign of the project based on lowering the ridgeline, neighborhood compatibility issues, bulk and mass, and privacy and density issues as they relate to the homes on the downslope side, seconded by Commissioner Long.  Approved, (6-0).

 


RECESS AND RECONVENE


 

At 8:40 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened.

 


PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.)



5.Variance (Case No. Zon2001-00088):  Mr. and Mrs. Chris Tsai (applicant) 10 La Vista Verde.


 

Assistant Planer Yu presented the staff report.  She stated that staff felt that approval of the Variance would be detrimental to the surrounding properties as a solid wall at the street would have a negative impact to the neighborhood.  Therefore, staff was recommending denial of the Variance.

 

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the wall was currently under construction.

 

Assistant Planner Yu answered that Code Enforcement has put a stop work order on the property for work on the wall, which was commenced without approval.

 

Commissioner Cartwright noted that there were currently several walls on La Vista Verde built in the front yard and asked if these walls had permits.

 

Assistant Planner Yu stated that she had looked in the address files for the properties and none of the files indicated approvals for the existing walls. 

 

Commissioner Cartwright asked if the side walls were included in this application, as they were six feet high or more.

 

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that any walls over 42 inches in the front yard setback were included in the Variance.

 

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

 

Chris Tsai 10 La Vista Verde stated the house is located on a pad that is approximately 4 to 5 feet lower than the street and when there is a heavy rain the water often floods his driveway and garage.  He discussed how narrow the street was and how often there were cars parked on both sides of the street so that he could not drive and park at his own house.  He felt that if he took his wrought iron fence down and put a block wall up that would help alleviate some of the problems.  When making their decision, he did not think staff took into consideration the fact that his house is a two-story Mediterranean style home and that a six-foot wall would not be out of place on the property.  He also wanted to put a gate across his driveway, which he could not do with a 42-inch high wall. 

 

Chairman Lyon asked staff from which side of the wall the height of the wall was measured, the street side of the wall or the property side of the wall.

 

Assistant Planner Yu answered that the wall could be a maximum 42 inches in height measured from the side with the lower grade.

 

Commissioner Cartwright asked if wrought iron could be added to the top of the 42-inch wall and how high that wrought iron could be.

 

Director/Secretary Rojas replied that with the approval of a Minor Exception Permit the applicant may be able to add wrought iron to the top of the wall up to six feet in total height.

 

Mr. Tsai stated that he was not aware that he could do that.

 

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if the Planning Commission denied the request for a Variance, would that restrict the applicant from coming back with a request for a Minor Exception Permit.

 

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the applicant could request a Minor Exception Permit at any time.  He stated that the applicant could build the 42-inch solid wall, by right, and staff would then consider whether a wall with an additional 2-½ feet of wrought iron would meet the 80 percent light and air requirement.

 

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had made it clear to the owner that they could apply for the Minor Exception Permit rather than the Variance.

 

Assistant Planner Yu stated that she has been working with the contractor and told him that staff would not be able to support a solid block wall and made him aware of the option of the Minor Exception Permit.

 

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Mueller felt the suggestion to apply for a Minor Exception Permit was a good one and would be a more acceptable solution to the problems at the site. 

 

Commissioner Cartwright agreed that there were no exceptional circumstances relating to the property that would make a finding for a Variance.  He stated that granting the Variance would override a 1988 Planning Commission decision to deny a 6-foot tall solid wall in the front yard at 27 La Vista Verde.  Therefore, he would support denial of the Variance and encourage the property owner to apply for a Minor Exception Permit.

 

Commissioner Cartwright moved to support the staff recommendation and deny the Variance request, seconded by Commissioner Mueller.  Approved, (6-0).


6.Height Variation No. 930, Grading Permit No. 2279 and Minor Exception Permit No. 596:  Ron & Blanca Letvin (applicant) 6528 Nancy Road

 

Commissioner Long moved to waive the reading of the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Mueller, approved (6-0).

 

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

 

Alan Klainbaum 6529 Nancy Road felt there was an inaccuracy in the silhouette at the site and requested that the silhouette be reconstructed to match the plans.

 

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Long moved to support staff recommendation to continue and re-notice the item, seconded by Commissioner Mueller.  Approved, (6-0).

 


7.Appeal of use determination (Case No. Zon2001-00120):  Alan Boeker, Standard Pacific (applicant/appellant) 5601 Crestridge Road

 

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that Standard Pacific has asked for a use determination for 9.76-acre property on Crestridge Road in order to pursue a possible project for a senior condominium development.  He listed the uses pursuant to Section 17.26.030(b) of the Development Code that the property was currently zoned for, and stated that senior condominiums were not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the zoning district.  However, pursuant to subsection n of the code, other uses that the Director deems to be similar to and no more intensive may be permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.  Based on this code section, Standard Pacific asked for a determination on the appropriateness of this use.  He stated that the Director issued a determination that senior condominiums are not consistent with institutional zoning district.  He explained that the proposal was for an age restricted condominium project that would provide additional special residential services on an as needed or as requested basis.  Residents could choose to avail themselves of all, some, or none of the additional special services offered by the developer.  As such, it was the Director’s determination that these special services were provided to the residents more for a matter of convenience that as essential life services, which makes this proposal dissimilar from the Canterbury, Palos Verdes Villa, Belmont Village, and the Ridgecrest Gardens.  He explained that the condominium development may be less intense in terms density, however could be more intense in terms of traffic and other impacts on surrounding properties than other institutional uses that could be permitted on the site.  In making the determination, the Director also considered the opinion of the City Attorney regarding the consistency of senior condominiums within the institutional zoning district as expressed to the developer of the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project.  In conclusion, Mr. Fox explained that staff does not refute Standard Pacific’s position that the proposal might be an attractive, well designed residential project that fulfill the community needs.  Staff does not agree, however, with Standard Pacific’s position that this proposal is an institutional use that would be consistent with the current zoning of the property.  Staff therefore believes that the Director correctly found Standard Pacific’s proposal is not consistent with the intents and purposes of the Institutional Zoning District and staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s determination.

 

Commissioner Cartwright asked if the essential difference between a home for the aged and this project was that with condominiums the City was not sure it could guarantee the long term provision of services for the aged. 

 

Senior Planner Fox agreed and added that there were certain inherent differences in what Standard Pacific was proposing to do and what is being provided by the Canterbury or Palos Verdes Villa.

 

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

 

Steve Kaplan 1983 W 190th Street, Torrance stated he was legal counsel for Standard Pacific.  He explained that Standard Pacific asked for a use determination because Crestridge Road was a street with institutional usage with a piece of property at the corner that is flux.  He felt that it the usage of the project was more institutional than residential, and it would be simpler to get this type of determination from the City rather than having no control of their own fate with respect to the corner piece of property and being subject to the classic and academic criticism that they were trying to spot zone a piece of property.  He stated there were five reasons in the staff report for the determination that the project was not consistent with institutional zoning.  He felt that their services were completely similar to the uses of homes for the aged.  Additionally, he disagreed that traffic would create a more intense use and questioned how staff could determine the use of the property was no more intensive but the traffic would be more intensive.  He disagreed with the City Attorney’s opinion on the differences between a for sale product and a rental product.  He stated there were no differences in enforcement of conditions in a Conditional Use Permit and the City could hold accountable the owner of the property, whether it be a single owner of an apartment project as there would be a Board of Directors of a condominium association.  Mr. Kaplan stated that Standard Pacific has submitted a letter to the City Manager showing its interest in being considered for a proposal to incorporate the corner property into the subject proposed project.

 

Commissioner Long explained that because the project proposes to provide fewer services, it’s use of the property will therefore be more intensive because people living in it won’t be getting services on site and will have to leave the site to get those services.

 

Commissioner Cartwright asked why the applicant asked for a use determination rather than addressing the letter from the City Attorney which states the developer is entitled to submit the application, but make sure certain things are addressed. 

 

Mr. Kaplan responded that staff raised an issue more about enforceability of any conditions of approval that might be imposed on the project, and staff interpreted that it would be more difficult for the City to enforce the conditions on a condominium project rather than an apartment type complex, which he completely disagreed with.

 

Ralph Spargo 15326 Alton Pkwy, Irvine stated he was the general manager of Standard Pacific Communities.  He stated that the age of a person has become less and less important as the population becomes more active.  He stated that this group is in a transitional stage where they want and need the benefits of home ownership but no longer want the burden of maintenance.  He explained that this group was concerned with prolonging the quality of life and are enrolled in programs to enhance their well being.  To this end, Standard Pacific would be incorporating some universal design techniques into the design of the project.  He explained that the universal design concept was one that creates opportunities for people to age in place such raised outlets, lower switches, and adjustable counter tops.  He stated this project was dedicated to provide this lifestyle in an institutional framework in a non-institutional way.  He stated the facility will contain extensive health and fitness facilities, a recreation component, food services, and on-going management spaces.  He stated there will be provisions for contract facilities for the establishment of a network consisting of medical practitioners, wellness groups, physical therapists, awareness programs, and various other community services groups that provide various essential lifestyle assisted services to the residents.  He stated that this will, in conjunction with the existence of a relationship with the adjacent assistant living facilities, assure the residents that their future needs will be met as they transition to their changing life stages.  He discussed traffic and pointed out that the residents of this type of facility do not typically travel during the peak hours of traffic. 

 

Commissioner Paulson asked about the food facilities that will be provided.

 

Mr. Spargo explained that there is typically a kitchen and cooking facilities that can be done on a group basis.

 

Commissioner Paulson asked what type of health facilities would be provided.

 

Mr. Spargo answered that facilities would be provided on site for periodic visitation by wellness groups, doctors, etc.

 

Alan Boeker 1983 W 190th Street, Torrance explained that the services discussed tonight are not part of the typical condominium development and would be mandated in the CC&R’s.  He stated that the association board would be in breech of their duties to their membership if they did not maintain the provision and the ability of the residents to enjoy the services through the association.  He proposed inserting language in the CC&R’s that say that these paragraphs of the CC&R’s that are mandated essential services to stay in conformance with the zoning not be allowed to be changed without the consent of the City.  He stated that there are other senior living facilities that currently have similar CC&R’s that have paragraphs that are untouchable without the consent of the City.   

 

Dan Withee 1983 W 190th Street, Torrance explained that one of the greatest challenges in designing a project for the site is the slope.  He displayed a site plan on the site and explained that the ways he tried to resolve the issues of accessibility and active senior living was to design smaller individual buildings.  He explained that each individual building has a subterranean garage.  He also noted that every building in the project is handicapped assessable and adaptable.  He explained that this design eliminated the need for large building pads, which was one of his biggest concerns with the property. 

 

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Paulson felt this type of facility was one that was much needed on the peninsula, however he felt the developer was trying to shoe horn the project into an area zoned for institutional use.  He did not think this project was an institutional use and the developer was really selling condominiums. 

 

Commissioner Cartwright agreed with Commissioner Paulson’s comments and stated he could not fit this type of project into an institutional zone.  He felt this project resembled residential condos with some special services offered as a benefit.  He felt the developer should proceed with a zone change application.

 

Chairman Lyon felt there were two issues before the Planning Commission:  whether or not they agreed with the Director’s determination and if the community needed such a facility in the community and would the neighbors support such a development.  He felt the Planning Commission needed to be proactive and get some input from the community.  He proposed the Planning Commission sponsor a workshop where they invite the residents of the Mesa Palos Verdes, the Ridgecrest community, and other local residents to tell the Commission what they felt about the multitude of possibilities that exist for development of this property.  He felt the Planning Commission could provide a great service to the applicant and the City Council if they could rather quickly get some public input on what the residents would support. 

 

Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with the comments of Commissioners Paulson and Cartwright and supported Chairman Lyon’s suggestion.

 

Commissioner Long agreed there was a great need for this type of facility.  He liked the Chairman’s idea for a workshop and suggested the concept of the workshop should be broadened to find out what are the needs for senior housing on the peninsula, what are the possible uses for this site, and if this site is not a good site to help meet the needs for senior housing what sites or potential sites are good locations.  He was not sure he agreed with the director’s decision on the use determination.  He felt that what was considered institutional and what was considered residential was on a type of sliding scale and he was not sure he could determine where this project falls on that sliding scale.  He felt it was important for residents who object to this type of project to not only object and site provisions of the code, but to also suggest alternatives. 

 

Commissioner Mueller did not think this proposal could be placed in an institutional zone.  He felt there were other potential uses for the property and agreed with Commissioner Long’s suggested topics for the workshop.  He felt that the property should be used for its intended use until there was a proposal for institutional use or there was a zone change.  He stated that he had no problem letting the property sit there.  He agreed with staff’s recommendations and felt the developer should submit a request for a zone change for the project.

 

Commissioner Cartwright felt this was the type of issue the City Council should address and pursue through town hall type meetings.  He did not think the Planning Commission was the right body to sponsor this type of workshop and that they were in a position to hold a workshop on something that was not even before them.  He felt that after a workshop if it was then determined by the City Council that a zone change was the proper thing to do, the application could then come before the Planning Commission.           

 

Commissioner Long agreed that the City Council might be the proper body to conduct this type of workshop. 

 

Director/Secretary Rojas felt there were two options regarding how to facilitate this type of workshop.  He felt the Planning Commission could take action on the use determination before them and along with the action recommend that the City Council conduct a workshop to discuss what uses should be allowed on this piece of property and volunteer to take the lead to host such a workshop.  The other option was, if the Planning Commission wanted to have some type of public feedback on what should go on the property before issuing a decision on the use determination, the item could be continued to January 8, 2002, public notices sent out, and a public input received at that meeting.

 

Chairman Lyon felt the workshop was an appropriate action for the Planning Commission because the Commission should be doing things for the City Council.  By the Planning Commission sponsoring a workshop to get public input, the Commission would be doing the City Council a service.  The Planning Commission could get the public input needed to be responsive to what the community thinks is in their best interest.  He proposed the Planning Commission uphold the Director’s determination on this particular issue, and inform the City Council that the Planning Commission would like to hold a workshop on January 8, 2002.  If the City Council would then like to direct the Planning Commission to not hold the workshop or delay the workshop that would then be their decision. 

 

Commissioner Cartwright did not think this was the type of thing the Planning Commission should be sponsoring, but rather the City Council. 

 

Commissioner Long agreed with Commissioner Cartwright that the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council sponsor a workshop for this purpose.  He also felt it would be appropriate to suggest a joint workshop between the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss not only the use of this site but the needs for senior housing in general.

 

Chairman Lyon suggested the Planning Commission propose a workshop be held between the City Council and Planning Commission.

 

Commissioner Long suggested the workshop be held not only for this site, but also for the City owned site on the corner, as well as needs for senior housing in the City.

 

Chairman Lyon re-opened the public hearing.

 

Steve Kaplan asked if the Planning Commission would consider continuing their request for a use determination until after the workshop process was complete as he preferred not to have a negative vote on what he believed was an excellent project. 

 

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

 

Director/Secretary Rojas noted that that at its next meeting, the City Council was scheduled to discuss alternative uses for the City owned property.  Given the Commission’s direction this evening, staff could forward the Commission’s suggestions through the staff report.

 

In support of Chairman Lyon’s proposal, Commissioner Long moved to table the existing application for a use determination and recommend to the City Council to conduct a joint workshop that would address the property on which the use determination has been made at the same time the City Council is addressing the adjoining City property.  Further, the Planning Commission would request the workshop address the adjoining corner property and the issue of the needs for and appropriate location of senior housing throughout the peninsula, seconded by Chairman Lyon. 

 

Chairman Lyon re-opened the public hearing.

 

Steve Kaplan asked, after discussion with his client, that the applicant be allowed to withdraw the use determination request.

 

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Long moved to accept the request to withdraw the use determination request, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. 

 

Commissioner Long asked that the motion reflect that the request was withdrawn rather than tabled.

 

The motion was approved, (6-0).

 


8.Variance and Coastal Permit (Case No. Zon2001-00107):  Eugene Summers 4174 Maritime Drive

 

Commissioner Mueller reported that he had received a communication from a member   of the homeowners association in that area that they had taken a look at the application, approved it at twelve feet, the height would be compatible with the existing structures, and the drainage would be cleared.

 

Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report.  He briefly described the existing condition on the property and the proposed addition.  He noted that staff had received a letter from the Portuguese Bend Club architectural review committee approving of and supporting approval of the project.  He stated that all required findings could be made for the Variance and the project was consistent with the City’s Coastal Specific Plan and Coastal Act and staff therefore recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. 

 

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

 

Dale Ulman 307 W. 5th Street, San Pedro, stated he was the architect for the project.  He noted that the lot size was very small and the current garage did not have the depth of 16 feet and was located below street level.  He felt the proposal was consistent with adjacent properties. 

 

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Paulson moved to accept staff recommendations as presented, seconded by Commissioner Mueller.  Approved, (6-0).

 

NEW BUSINESS

 


9.Selection of members for the Neighborhood Compatibility Committee


 

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the City Council has been looking at neighborhood compatibility issues and felt it would be beneficial to form a committee made up of two City Council members and two Planning Commissioners to study the issues.  The committee will report back to the City Council in approximately three months as to whether there is any need for any major amendments to the Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance.

 

Chairman Lyon suggested appointing Commissioner Cartwright and himself to serve as the Planning Commission representatives.  He felt he and Commissioner Cartwright had the depth of experience and knowledge of the past that was important to bring to the committee.

 

Chairman Lyon moved to appoint Commissioner Cartwright and Chairman Lyon to serve on the Neighborhood Compatibility Committee, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright.

 

Commissioner Long felt it was important for both members of long tenure and members of a shorter tenure to be represented in workshop and joint committee situations, and that should be considered with respect to the nomination.

 

Commissioner Cartwright agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Long and stated that he did not feel he and Chairman Lyon were the only ones who could represent the Planning Commission on this committee.  He felt, however, that he and Chairman Lyon were a good start. 

 

The motion was approved, 4-1-1, with Commissioner Mueller dissenting and Commissioner Long abstaining.

 

Commissioner Mueller explained that he had voted no only to give a chance for another member of the Planning Commission to volunteer for the position.

 

Commissioner Long stated that he had abstained because he did not have an opinion one way or the other on the subject.

 


ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was Adjourned at 11:48 p.m.


 


2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 221, et. al. – TIME EXTENSION: 31270

Palos Verdes Drive West,  Mrs. Claudia Krikorian (applicant).  (AM)


 

            TO:     CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

         FROM:       DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

          DATE:       JANUARY 8, 2001

SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 221, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2232, VARIANCE NO. 477 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 733 (KRIKORIAN, 31270 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST)

 

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, Senior Planner

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Approve the applicants’ request for a one year time extension, from the date of expiration (December 12, 2001) via Minute Order, thereby setting the expiration date as December 12, 2002, with all conditions of approval remaining in full force and effect.

 

BACKGROUND

 

On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit No. 221, Grading Permit No. 2232, Variance No. 477 and Environmental Assessment No. 733 to allow the construction of a new, 14,990 square foot, school building for the Peninsula Montessori School, on vacant property located at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West.  Soon thereafter, while preparing the engineered plans for “plan check” submittal, the applicant, Claudia Krikorian, realized that the construction of the school building might not be completed in time for the 2001-2002 academic school year.  Working under a critical time constraint, the applicant began considering the idea of locating the new school in the vacant grocery market building at the Golden Cove Shopping Center, which would only require minor improvements as opposed to new construction.  As such, an application to occupy the vacant grocery market space was submitted to the Planning Department by the applicant and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission at their April 24, 2001 meeting.   

 

The Peninsula Montessori School has been operating at the Golden Cove Shopping Center since September 2001.  Although the applicant did not commence construction on entitlements originally issued for a school on the vacant property at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West, the applicant has expressed an interest to Staff in constructing another school at this location catering to children with special academic needs.  Pursuant to Section 17.86.070(C) of the Development Code, any development application initially approved by the Planning Commission shall be valid for one year from the date of final action.   Therefore, since the project approvals were due to expire

on December 12, 2001, a time extension request was respectfully submitted by the applicant on December 11, 2001 for consideration by the Planning Commission.  In accordance with the Development Code, time extensions are considered timely if filed prior to the expiration date.  The justification for the time extension request will be discussed in the following section.        

 

DISCUSSION

 

Pursuant to Section 17.86.070(C) of the Development Code, any development permit application initially approved by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be valid for one year from the date of final action on the permit or approval.  All such permits shall be null and void after that time unless the applicant has commenced upon the use. Upon a showing of substantial hardship, delays beyond the control of the applicant or other good cause, the Planning Commission or City Council may extend this period one time for up to one additional year.  As such, with the project approvals expiring on December 12, 2001, the applicant respectfully submitted a request for a time extension on December 11, 2001 (see attachment). 

 

As stated in the previous section, the applicant desires to construct a school for children with special academic needs on the vacant lot located at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West.  According to the applicant, the Peninsula lacks appropriate educational facilities that serve children with such academic needs.  Therefore, the applicant believes that the project site is an ideal location for such a school since the building approved by the Planning Commission is large enough to accommodate such students and is designed to respect the surrounding neighborhood.  If this school is eventually constructed, it is the applicant’s intention to construct the building as approved by the Commission.  However, according to the applicant’s time extension letter, additional time is needed to complete negotiations to finance the construction and operation of such a school.  Furthermore, Staff was informed that additional time is also needed to address outstanding items on the engineered plans with respect to final approvals from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for construction adjacent to an existing sewer easement that traverses the property.     

 

Based on the information expressed by the applicant pertaining to the time extension request, Staff believes that a time extension is warranted.  Therefore, Staff recommends that a one year time extension be granted.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

It should be noted that during the Commission’s review of the development applications for the school at the Golden Cove Shopping Center, a concern was raised that if the Peninsula Montessori School located to the shopping center and the entitlement for the vacant lot remained valid, there was a potential for the operation of two schools within the same general location, thus creating a potential adverse impact to surrounding streets with increased vehicle trips.  In response, the Commission placed a condition on the approval for the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center, that provides the Commission with an opportunity to reassess traffic related impacts in the event a private school becomes operational at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West.  This condition remains in full force and effect, and reads as follows:

 

In the event that a private school is developed and becomes operational at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West in accordance with approved Conditional Use Permit No. 221, et. al., the Montessori School shall conduct a traffic study to access the cumulative traffic impacts resulting from the joint operation of the school at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West and the Montessori School at Golden Cove.  At a minimum, the traffic study shall consider cumulative traffic impacts resulting from the development of the Golden Cove Shopping Center, with the three new buildings along Palos Verdes Drive West and the Peninsula Montessori School, Long Point, Ocean Trails, Sub-Region 1, and any other development projects.  The traffic study shall be conducted no later than 6 months after the school at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West becomes operational.  The traffic study shall be submitted to the City for review by the City’s Traffic Consultant and Traffic Committee.  The applicant shall establish a trust deposit to pay for the cost of the City’s review. The results of the traffic study and Traffic Committee’s recommendation shall be presented to the Planning Commission for review.  Notice of the Planning Commission review shall be the same as the 6 month review discussed in Condition No. 6.  Based on the results of the traffic study, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify any Conditions of Approval as deemed necessary and appropriate.    

 

CONCLUSION

 

Based on the above discussion, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a maximum one (1) year time extension from the date of expiration (December 12, 2001) for Conditional Use Permit No. 221, Grading Permit No. 2232, Variance No. 477, and environmental Assessment No. 733.  If granted, the approvals shall be valid until December 12, 2002.

 


ATTACHMENTS


 

·        Applicant’s extension letter

 


RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:


 


CONTINUED BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)


 


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


 


3.GRADING PERMIT NO. 2191: Larry Peha (applicant) and Mr. and Mrs. Heru Wiredja (owner), 3815 Palos Verdes Drive South (AM).

TO:                       CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING  COMMISSION

FROM:                 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE    ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002

SUBJECT:           GRADING PERMIT NO. 2191 / 3815 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH

 

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Pursuant to the applicant’s request, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the January 22, 2002 meeting.     

 

DISCUSSION

 

At the November 27th meeting, the Commission was presented with the applicant’s interpretation request pertaining to Condition No. 19 of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36 for Grading Permit No. 2191.  According to the project conditions approved by the Commission at their October 9, 2001 meeting, the applicant is required to re-design the flat roof over the living room rotunda and entry foyer to a pitched roof.  During the Commission’s discussion on the interpretation request, it was determined that the minutes from the October 9th meeting reflect an oversight by the Commission since no direction on this matter was given to the project applicant with respect to Staff’s recommendation.  As a result, the Commission passed a motion, with a 3-2 vote, requiring a new public hearing to re-consider the merits of Condition No. 19 on the basis that the Planning Commission did not intentionally include the condition in the Resolution.  Additionally, the Commission, after consulting with the applicant and the project architect, directed Staff to schedule the public hearing for the January 8, 2002 meeting.  

 

On January 3, 2002, Staff was informed (see attachment) that the project architect could not attend the scheduled January 8th meeting due to an unexpected surgery.  Therefore, since the applicant believes that it is important that the project architect attend the meeting, the applicant respectfully requests that the Commission continue the public hearing to the January 22, 2002 meeting. 

 

CONCLUSION 

 

Based on the above discussion, Staff recommends that the public hearing for this item be continued to the January 22, 2002 meeting.    

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

·        Applicant’s Continuance Letter

 

 

 

 


NEW BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)


 


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:

Staff

 

4.         PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2002.

 


PLANNING COMMISSION

PRE-AGENDA

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002


 


CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.                              MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2002

 


CONTINUED BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)


 


2.GRADING PERMIT NO. 2191: Larry Peha (applicant) and Mr. and Mrs. Heru Wiredja (owner), 3815 Palos Verdes Drive South (AM).

 

Consider amending Condition No. 19 of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36 adopted by the Planning Commission at its October 9th meeting.

 

 


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


                                               

 


3.HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT NO. 930, GRADING PERMI TNO. 2279 and MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 596:  Ron & Blanca Letvin, (applicant), 6528 Nancy Road.  (AM)

 

Allow the demolition of an existing one-story residence, and construction of a new two-story residence measuring 3,921 square feet in area, and an overall height of 26-feet.  The new residence will contain a balcony, where a portion of the balcony projects 1’-9” into the required 20-foot front yard setback; thereby maintaining an 18’-3” front yard setback.  Lastly, a total of 310 cubic yards of grading is proposed to accommodate the new residence.

 

4.                              CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 226, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2296,

and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 742:  Verizon Wireless

Services, Mr. John Koos, (applicant), 32201 Forrestal Drive.  (GR)

 

A request to construct a 30-foot high monopole antenna west of the existing Ladera Linda Community Center Buildings, east of the soccer fields, and southwest of the existing tennis courts.  In addition, a 240-square foot fenced area with equipment cabinets is proposed adjacent to the new antenna pole.

           


NEW BUSINESS:


 

5.            NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY UPDATE:  (AM)                          

 

Provide the Commission with a draft version of the Neighborhood Compatibility Brochure, as directed by the Sub-committee, for review and discussion by the Commission on the content and format of the brochure.

Commission

 


ADJOURNMENT:


 

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,

January 22, 2002, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.