Loading...
PC MINS 19830927Approved: 10-11-83 Corrected: 10-25-83 MINUTES 166) City,of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 27, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: McNulty, Hughes, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Brown LATE ARRIVAL: None ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Senior Planner Ann M.W. Negendank and Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. COMMUNICATIONS T.T. 38848 -Island View Director Hightower informed the Private Streets Planning Commission that this was for its information and that the same communication would be presented to the City Council at its October 18 meeting. She also stated that this item had been tabled by the Planning Commission and may be coming back at a later date. Mr. McTaggart commented that he felt that the crime survey comparison attached to the communication was very misleading. The survey erroneously compared the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates. The cities which should have been compared were Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills, and each City had seven residential crimes in the same period. There was, therefore, no difference in crime rate. Mr. Hughes made the motion to receive and file the communication. Dr. Brown seconded, motion passed unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Item A -Minutes of Mr. Hinchliffe requested that the September 13, 1983 motion vote for second units be corrected to show as follows: "Dr. Brown made the motion to approve Resolution P.C. 83-13 with the amendment to 17.02.020. Mr. McTaggart seconded, motion passed 4 to 1 with Mr. Hinchliffe voting no." Dr. Brown moved to approve as amended. Mr. McTaggart seconded, motion passed unanimously. Item B -July 26 Minutes Motion should read: "Mr. Hughes Grading 665 -Correction made the motion that they approve of motion. the recommendations stated in the staff report or that the fill be compacted, on an either/or basis. Mr. McNulty seconded, motion passed with three yes, two no." Dr. Brown moved to approve as amended. Mr. McNulty seconded, motion passed unanimously. R OLD BUSINESS A. Code Amendment No. 19 Item J -Wall height in front and side setbacks • Ann M.W. Negendank gave the staff report. Mr. McTaggart asked if anyone had checked into liability to the City in regards to walls that were already established. Do people have,five years to tear them down and would they be non -conforming. Ms. Negendank stated that this would apply for any new projects. Mr. McTaggart expressed his concern that if any ordinance was passed that was a radical change to the existing ordinance and if the City does not have existing walls put down to 30 inches that the City would be vulner- able. Director Hightower stated that the City Attorney had said in the past that the City need not search for existing walls and she further suggested that if the Planning Commission passed this, it might want to bring that change to the attention of the City Council. Dr. Brown suggested that the Planninq Commission approve this item with a note to City Council stating the liability question and include a note about the prima fisiespeed law. Dr. Brown moved, Mr. McTaggart seconded, and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. Dr. Brown moved to approve Resolution P.C. 83-15 and Exhibit A with a note to City Council of Planning Commission concerns. Mr. Hughes seconded, motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Coastal Permit No. 1 Ann M.W. Negendank gave the staff Burrell report. T.M.,40640/CUP 68 Residential Subdivision Mr. Hinchliffe opened the public hearing. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, applicant, addressed the Commission giving some background of this item to date including the modification decisions the City Council had made to setbacks and walls and that the landscaping plan still had to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Brockett, 3420 Palos Verdes Drive West, addressed the Commission expressing concern regarding division of beach access and that this divided access should be included. He stated that he felt that the existing cactus should be included in the landscaping plan. Mr. Burrell stated that there is a fence required adjacent to Mr. Brockett's property and this will force people to use the trail. He added that the cactus will probably be removed when the farming goes in because it will interfere with the farming but perhaps some of it could be transplanted to another area. Dr. Brown moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Hughes seconded, motion passed unanimously. Dr. Brown moved to approve Coastal Permit No. 1. Mr. Hughes seconded, motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION -2 September 27, 1983 Grading No. 675 Dino Putrino gave the staff report. Fawell 17 Bronco Dr. Brown asked the staff that if Deck & Spa Addition the project was designed to the geology report and if it were reduced in size would that pose a lesser problem. Mr. Putrino replied that staff felt that the greater than 50% slope was the greatest problem, but if reduced in size it would help. Pat Batte, 6551 Gardenia Ave., Long Beach, architect, stated that the geology report did not oppose the deck and the plan was consistent with Building and Safety guidelines. He added that the hillside would be stable and that the deck does set back. Further, that according to the geology report the deck supported on the 50% slope would have piers in bedrock and that there would be minimal impact on the slope due to the five piers that would be used and that the bedrock at the top was approxi- mately 15 feet deep. Mr. McNulty stated that the staff report indicates that the deck was not in accordance with the geology report. Mr. Batte stated that there was a little discrepancy regarding depth of the piers. The plans show 2 feet and the report requires 3 feet. Mr. Batte added that the piers would be 3 feet deep on slope and 6 feet deep on top level. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if Mr. Putrino now felt that this application would conform to requirements. Mr. Putrino stated that it is in conformance with the geology report. He added that if the deck was cantilevered there would be no need for the Planning Commission to make a decision. Mr. McNulty asked if staff had made any plans with the deck cantilevered and reduced. Mr. Putrino stated no, that it was a suggestion of staff to cantilever and that the Planning Commission had denied applications where there was a greater than 35% slope to support a deck. Mr. Batte stated that due to the size of the deck it was not feasible to cantilever. Dr. Brown asked how much square footage would be removed if cantilevered. Mr. Batte replied that he would have to figure that out but could probably cut 4 feet for every 30 feet. Mr. McTaggart asked about the spa location and if it could be relocated. Mr. Batte stated that it would sit on level ground and that he could move the spa two feet closer to the house if needed. Mr. Hughes moved to deny Grading No. 675, stating that in his opinion it was inconsistent with what the Commission has tried to achieve these past years and that the slope was unsafe. Motion was seconded by Mr. McTaggart. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that if he interpreted correctly what the architect had said a reasonable deck could be built through cantilevering. Motion vote was as follows: Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes voted yes. Dr. Brown abstained. Mr. McNulty voted no. PLANNING COMMISSION 91 September 27, 1983 N 0 Staff L] 1. Planning Commission Schedule The following schedule was agreed upon for the months of October, November and December. Meetings will be held: October 11 and 25; November 9; and, December 13. , ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION 0 September 27, 1983 I