Loading...
PC MINS 198303220 6 (a3) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 22, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe LATE ARRIVAL: Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa-Lavitt, and Assistant Planners Dino Putrino and Jonathon Shepherd. Mr. Hinchliffe announced that Item VIa, Conditional Use Permit No. 86/Variance No. 89, would be deferred, due to the applicant revising his application. He noted that the public hearing would be continued until April 26, 1983. He announced that this item will not be renoticed. CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, to postpone consideration of the Consent Calendar until end of agenda for comments and corrections. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 33- Mr. Putrino stated that on March 8, REVISION 1983, the Planning Commission tabled Three Park Place, Lot 2, Tract this item for further information 32110 and staff research regarding Applicant/Landowner: Steven and possible traffic visibility and Phyllis Murphy conflict problems. The proposed footprint is designed in relationship to a proposed curb cut on Park Place (abandoning existing access from Crenshaw Boulevard). The Development Code states that 42 inches is the maximum height of a wall in the front and/or street -side setbacks of a corner lot. Since the five-foot block wall would be perpendicular to the driveway/curb cut, a traffic visibility problem may be created. The property owner could construct a gate on the property line, across the driveway of the proposed or approved curb cut, for the purposes of vehicular driveway traffic control, without a permit. This gate, when closed, would cause an ingressing vehicle to stop across the public right-of-way and hang over into the roadway area, thereby interfering with the free flow of traffic on the street. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review the previous minutes and determination of the five-foot block wall. Staff also recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 33 (Revision) with conditions contained in Exhibit A. Mr. Putrino approached the map which indicated the location of the five- foot wall. Dr. Brown arrived at 7:42 P.M. Steve Murphy, 24871 Luna Bonita Drive, Laguna Hills, landowner, stated that he was proposing a seven -foot setback from the gate, the reason being that there is 8-1/2 feet from the street surface to the property line. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the three issues of concern to him were traffic, sight distance, and potential conflicts. He noted that during the peak hours, approximately 160 cars come off of Crest. He said that he observed a 45 inch eye to eye sight projection from the seat of his car. Mr. Hughes asked what, if anything, would be done to alleviate the problem of persons racing down Crenshaw Boulevard and onto Burrell Lane. Mr. Burrell stated that they could use speed bumps; however, he noted that strict enforcement of the speed limit would be the only viable alternative. He indicated the location where the slumpstone wall would be constructed. He said that the March 14, 1978 minutes indicated three basic concerns, those being, noise, vandalism, and privacy. He assured the Commission that both he and staff agreed that the plans are stamped approved. He added that they do not need any more permits to build the wall. Mr. McTaggart asked Mr. Burrell if the only change to Mr. Murphy's plans was the setback of a future proposed gate to the property line. Mr. Burrell replied in the affirmative, adding that there is also a 22 -foot parkway. Ms. Hightower stated that staff was in agreement with Mr. Burrell's comments: that he did have plans stamped and signed by a staff member. She added that she was not aware of Planning Commission approval of a five-foot wall entirely around particular lots and requested clarification. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, to close the public hearing. Mr. McTaggart stated that he was aware of the proposed five-foot wall. He did not feel that the setback to the gate was an unreasonable request. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and carried, to approve Planning Commission Resolution 83-4, thereby approving the revision to Conditional Use Permit 33 with Exhibit A, as amended. Approval is subject to the Crenshaw curb cut being restored before the curb cut is placed on Park Place. (Mr. McTaggart objected.) Mr. Hughes noted that on several occasions the Commission asked for detailed plans of the retaining wall, not fences. He recalled discussions centered around fences, but he did not recall discussions concerning walls along Crenshaw Boulevard. Mr. Hinchliffe did not recall approving a solid block wall on Crenshaw Boulevard. Dr. Brown recommended that staff speak to the City Attorney before any action is taken. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried with Mr. McTaggart objecting, to direct staff to review with the City Attorney the discussions concerning the wall and fences at previous meetings, and bring back a recommendation. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15475 By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by CUP NO. 84 Mr. McNulty, to adopt Planning Applicant: Ray Mathys Commission Resolution 83-5, thereby Landowner: Joe Anthony denying Tentative Parcel Map 15475 and Conditional Use Permit No. 84. AYES: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart NOES: Brown, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86 VARIANCE NO. 89 Silver Spur/Crenshaw Boulevard Applicant/Landowner: Albert Levitt PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Hinchliffe opened the public hearing and stated that this item would be deferred to April 26, 1983. He announced that there would be no further notice. -2- March 21, 1983 2 0 Ed Hallock, 27922 Longhill Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, member of the Peninsula Rim Homeowners Association, stated that Mr. Levitt also developed Hillside Village, and he noted that that particular property is having economic difficulty. He stated that the parking structure of the proposed project will be in the Rancho Palos Verdes jurisdiction, and he urged the Commission to take into consideration that this will have an adverse effect on the community. His main concern was the economic viability of the structure. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to April 26. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 647 Mr. Shepherd gave staff report. He 2051 Elberon stated that the applicant was proposing Applicant/Landowner. George M. a six-foot high retaining wall to be Thomas placed along the eastern property line. The Building Code will require a 36 -inch guard rail to be placed on top of the retaining wall for safety reasons. This will bring the total height of the retaining wall/guard rail to 9-1/2 feet. He stated that should the grading application be approved, a Minor Exception Permit would be necessary for the placement of the safety rail. George Thomas, 2051 Elberon, San Pedro, applicant, stated that his residence now falls under the jurisdiction of Rancho Palos Verdes effective January 5, 1983. He stated that the six-foot retaining wall to be placed along the easterly property line was approved by the County of Los Angeles, and a permit was issued on April 17, 1981. However, the wall was never built, due to lack of funds. Therefore, the permit has expired. Mr. McTaggart asked the applicant when he reapplied for the permit. Mr. Thomas replied that he reapplied in the latter part of January. He noted that there are four other walls above six feet in height on Elberon. Dr. Brown felt that the permit should be denied. Mr. Hughes stated that the applicant had acted in good faith and had taken the appropriate steps to secure the proper permits for his property; therefore, the applicant should be allowed to complete the project. He felt that the grading application should be approved and that the applicant should consult with staff. Mr. Hinchliffe and Mr. McNulty concurred with Mr'. Hughes. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and carried with Dr. Brown objecting, to approve Grading Application No. 647 and direct the applicant to work with staff to obtain the necessary Minor Exception. STAFF REPORTS Mr. McNulty wished to add something Press Release to the effect that, ". . . it is Second Units imperative that you attend this meeting." Mr. McNulty expressed a desire to use stronger wording in the press release. Mr. Hughes suggested adding to Paragraph 4, "It is important that you attend because whatever kind of ordinance is adopted will affect every single family residential property in the city." Dr. Brown suggested adding to Paragraph 4, "This may be the public's only chance to effect an ordinance that will affect every homeowner." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- March 21, 1983 Mr. McNulty recommended that the first sentence in the press release read, "The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requests the input from all interested single family residence homeowners in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on an issue that will greatly affect the future use of all single family residential property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes." The Commission unanimously accepted Mr. McNulty's proposed wording or similar for the first sentence in the press release. RECOMMENDED SCHEMATIC MASTER PLAN Ms. Hightower stated that this PORTUGUESE BEND/LADERA LINDA item will be going before the City Council on April 5, 1983. She requested input from the Commissioners on their recommendations. Dr. Brown accepted the recommendation, as proposed. Mr. Hughes stated that he would prefer to have parking come off Forrestal, as opposed to residential streets. Mr. Hughes asked where there is access to the middle parking lot. Ms. Hightower replied that there is an existing ramp parallel with Forrestal. Mr. Hinchliffe commended the Parks and Recreation Committee. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Hughes stated that Page 2, paragraph 12 of the March 8, 1983, minutes should read, "Mr. Hughes stated that, based on the applicant's testimony, the California State Department of Housing. . ." Mr. McTaggart stated that on Page 2, paragraph 7, line 2, his intention was that if it had been a condominium. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, to approve the March 8, 1983, minutes with the two noted corrections. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 9:13 P.M., it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, April 5, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. -4- March 21, 1983