Loading...
CC MINS 19850305 JNTM I N U T E S RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION /PLANNING COMMISSION .MARCH 5, 1985 The meeting was called to order at 6:25 P.M. by Mayor John McTaggart. PRESENT: MAYOR PRO TEM HINCHLIFFE COUNCILWOMAN BACHARACH COUNCILMAN HUGHES COUNCILMAN RYAN MAYOR McTAGGART PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT: COMMISSIONER BROWN COMMISSIONER McNULTY COMMISSIONER VON HAGEN COMMISSIONER ORTOLANO ABSENT: COMMISSIONER WIKE STAFF PRESENT: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SHARON HIGHTOWER ASSISTANT PLANNER ALICE ANGUS SENIOR PLANNER ANN NEGENDANK CITY MANAGER DON GULU Z ZY CITY ATTORNEY STEVE DORSEY CITY CLERK JO PURCELL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 20 - Director Hightower stated the Planning Commis - CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES sion had.concerns about accessory construction GREATER THAN 35% on slopes greater than 35 %. A lengthy discussion then took place between the Council and the Planning Commission during which the following comments were made and ideas discussed: whether the Minor Exception,Permit process was designed to bring minor construc- tion into legal conformance if the City should allow for minor encroachments with a variance, whether the City Council wanted to allow decks and jacuzzis to be built in areas that traditionally were not allowed, and the fact that the Planning Commission felt there are places where it is appropriate to build on slopes greater than 35 %. Since the number of requests before the Planning Commission for these items was rather minor, the Commission felt that perhaps the Minor Exception Permit could be used in considering these matters. #.7000P- .1 The Commission and Council went on to discuss the historical reasons for pre- venting construction on slopes: this was a means to prevent construction on slopes greater than 35 %, it was a way of controlling the density of construc- tion, and would prevent destruction of the natural slopes. It was the consensus of the Council that the Planning Commission should consider ways to strenghten the Development Code to make it clear that development on slopes is to be minimal. Concern was expressed for the long range effect of construction on slopes. Discussion then took place on when it would be appropriate to make exceptions to the Code, and if a new variance procedure should be devised allowing some leeway to be considered by the Commission. The Commission expressed concern that the Development Code now cites safety reasons and not aesthetic reasons for pre- venting construction on these slopes. The discussion went on to explore such ideas as: if these cases should be looked at on an individual basis to allow reasonable enjoyment of property, if they should be considered under a procedure less restrictive than the CUP process, development of some method to allow solar panels, and findings that might have to be made to allow some variances. The discussion continued on whether a different set of criteria than what pre- sently exists should be considered in allowing these accessory uses, if anything being built in the 35% slope should go through the Minor Exception Permit proce- dure, and if a policy listing what can and cannot be constructed in these areas should be developed. In conclusion it was the general consensus that the Council recognizes there are certain situations that should be considered in allowing accessory construction Requests should be considered only if they are reasonable and if they can be accommodated within the aesthetic and safety considerations. Additionally, it was the consensus that all of these requests should be considered by the Planning Commission on a case -by -case basis. Generally, the policy should not encourage such accessory construction. Staff was requested to develop a speci- fic application to evaluate construction on slopes >35 %. not in OH zones. CODE AMENDMENT #20 - Associate Planner Angus presented the agenda FAMILY DAY CARE January 29, 1985 staff memorandum concerning the issue of family day care centers. This is an issue that is not covered in the City's Development Code. The State law provides that the care of six or fewer children is permitted without a special permit, however, care of more would require a CUP* A brief discussion followed with comments by the City Attorney on the restric- tion which can be placed on these care centers by the City and the fact that the City is preempted by State law in placing such restrictions. It was the consensus that since the City has relatively few requests for these care centers, and that expectations should not be raised, no public hearing should be required with any permit to be imposed. COUNCIL -2- MARCH 5, 1985 #700CP.1.1 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS - Explaining that his firm was representing a COMMISSIONER McNULTY client--who is suing the RTD and the City is named as a co- defendant in the matter, Commissioner McNulty stated that he will withdraw from the case and refer it to another law firm if it was deemed to be a conflict of 'Interest. It was the opinion of City Attorney Dorsey that the nature of Mr. McNulty's duties as a Planning Commissioner and his role in such an issue did not present conflict of interest. ADJOURNMENT At 7:30 P.M. the meeting adjourned on motion of Councilman Hinchliffe. t M AY OR ATTEST: CITY CLERK COUNCIL -3- MARCH 5, 1985 #700CP -.1.2