Loading...
PC MINS 19820525M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting May 25, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: Brown ABSENT: Baer Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Alice Bergquist Angus, and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd, Joseph Gamble, and Dino Putrino. VARIANCE NO. 80 Mr. Putrino said the request is for a 28049 Lobrook Drive room addition which would exceed the Applicant/Landowner: Stager 30 -foot height limit. He said the subject property has an average slope of approximately 37 percent which slopes downward from the street of access. He said the proposed project is a single story addition to the rear of the main structure, and that the existing main structure has an overall height of 29 feet. He said although the overall height of the proposed structure and existing house exceeds the maximum allowed 30 feet, by four and one-half feet, the addition would not increase the ridge height of the main structure but lowers the lowest founda- tion wall. Staff recommended approval of the variance since all of the re- quired four findings could be made, as presented in the staff report. Public hearing was opened. There was no one present wishing to address the Commission. By motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. By motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 82-10, thereby approving Variance No. 80 based on the findings as presented in the staff report. Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 14 Mr. Gamble briefly reviewed the staff Minor nonconforming structures report, noting that with the exception Clarification of front property of clarification of lot depth and the line for flag lots definitions, this Code Amendment was Clarification of lot depth initially reviewed by the Commission Definitions at its April 27, 1982 meeting. He said staff suggested amending Code Section 17.40.020 in order to alleviate problems related to lot depth determination, and amending the Definition Section of the Code with clarification of upslope and downslope lots. Staff recommended that the Commission consider the information presented. Mr. McTaggart asked if it was possible to include clarification of the Code with regard to magnitude of minor exception permits in this legislation rather than initiate another Code Amendment. He said recent cases have pointed out an oversight in the existing ordinance and proposed that a - — variation never exceed 10 feet. He also suggested limiting the number,,_ of minor exceptions allowed for a property. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried two to one, with Mr. Hinchliffe dissenting, the Commission moved to include the possi- bility of changing the Minor Exception Permit section of the Code as part of Code Amendment No. 14. Director Hightower noted that in recommending approval of the Code Amend- ment to the City Council there must be at least three affirmative votes. Public hearing was opened. There was no one present wishing to address the Commission. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Gamble said the intent of the pro- posed section concerning nonconforming structures was to reflect what the City Council was trying to achieve. Re the definition of a minor noncon- forming structure, he said he was trying to establish definite sizes to separate major and minor structures. He said the reason the figure 880 square feet was chosen was to delineate between decks which are of a patio nature and those of a tennis court nature. Dr. Brown arrived at 7:54 p.m. Mr. McTaggart was uncomfortable with defining an 880 square foot deck as minor, as he felt that was a substantial size deck. He asked how the 64 square foot size accessory building was picked. He felt the two sizes were out of proportion. Director Hightower explained that structures that size or less were already defined in the Building Code as not needing a building permit. She said the County previously allowed decks higher than the City permits with higher fences on top of them. Mr. Hughes said if they allow a raised 880 square foot deck with a wall around it, from below no one could tell that it had no roof, that the effect would be the same. He said the way the amendment is proposed, an 8 x 10 foot tool shed would not be permitted, but an 880 square foot deck with a wall around it would be allowed. Mr. Hughes said he had a problem with the whole concept because people will want to construct what the City allows their neighbors to rebuild. Mr. McTaggart suggested allowing minor nonconforming structures to be re- built under this section only if they do not require a building permit, as a permit would be required for decks that are elevated above ground. It was the consensus of the Commission that something along the lines of Mr. McTaggart's above suggestion might make sense and staff was directed to research it. Mr. McTaggart said it could state that no minor nonconforming structure may be rebuilt without first obtaining permission from the City, and that the City charge a $5 fee. He said by doing that the burden is on the applicant to request permission and prove they are simply replacing something. Re front property line designation for flag lots, Director Hightower noted that the City has been consistently using this interpretation the entire time the Code has been in effect. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed wording of that section is acceptable. 5/25/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- 9- In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower said the tract maps label whether property access is a private drive or a road, that a road re- quires more width. Following Commission discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to accept the definitions of upslope lot and downslope lot, as presented by staff. Re minor exception permits, Mr. McTaggart felt the magnitude concerning lot dimensions should be limited to not exceed a 10 -foot or 20 -percent Code reduction, whichever is less. He also felt they should limit the number of minor exceptions for lot dimensions on any lot to one exception. His con- cern was that someone could get a minor exception permit for three or four dimensions, which would have an effect on lot coverage and create a sub- standard lot. He said anyone requesting additional modifications could apply for a variance. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff should look only at re- wording the Minor Exception Permit section to limit lot dimension reductions to 10 feet or 20 percent, whichever is less. COMMERCIAL ANTENNA ISSUES Mr. Shepherd said on March 31, 1982, the City Council directed the Commis- sion and staff to study and review issues pertinent to commercial antennae regulations. He said staff also included the issue of earth station regulations in its report and referred the Commission to the supplemental material which was included in the agenda packets. Concerning exposure of people to non -ionizing electromagnetic energy, he said there were no clinical studies addressing it and that it was not a major concern to the public. He said the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not enforce standards of radio frequency radiation in relation to exposure from transmitters. Staff recommended that the Commis- sion discuss the issues, identify design criteria and request that staff prepare and submit a report on those issues. Mr. Hughes said the City has a commodity which it could make use of because of its hilltop location which is excellent for transmitters. He said the City should address how to deal with the issue and with the City's unique- ness. He did not feel earth stations would create a wide range of problems as indicated in the staff report. Director Hightower said the ma3or concern with earth stations is that the City's Code does not currently deal with them. Dr. Brown was concerned about the kind of 3urisdictional control the City really has and was also concerned about multiple sites being used for com- mercial antennas. Mr. Hughes said the FCC has no controls over structural antennas but that there were court decisions which place limits on what the City can do. He said the City has the right and the responsibility to require that the structures be built per the Uniform Building Code and, in the case of com- mercial antennas, can require that they be located only in commercially developed areas. He said there were geographic problems associated with consolidating transmitters to one area, and that there is a great potential for interference with a lot of transmitters in close proximity. Mr. McTaggart suggested allowing commercial antennas with a conditional use permit in Commercial and Institutional zones. Dr. Brown expressed concern about television interference problems. Mr. Hughes said that interference only occurs because televisions are made inexpensively, without -filters. He felt the benefits to the community far exceed the problems since transmitters are used for police and fire communi- cations, etc. He said the transmitters do not interfere with the televisions, 5/25/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- rel that the televisions receive the signals due to defective manufacturing. He noted that television reception is even affected by the use of electrical appliances; within the home. He said a filter costs approximately $10 and could be attached to the antenna of anyone experiencing problems. He felt there were practical reasons from a building and safety standpoint to keep the transmitters out of residential areas. He suggested that staff obtain a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on Mt. Wilson and any other available reports. Mr. McTaggart suggested that -staff check on locations for some appropriate sites and that commercial broadcasting be limited to Institutional, Commer- cial, and Municipal zones. Director Hightower said some of the information staff has received indicates that the structures can be located within buildings. She felt that was a design consideration that the City might wish to have, at least as a policy guideline. She said along with reviewing locations, criteria would be necessary, as there may be some areas where large towers would be un- desirable. Staff was directed to look at locations and obtain more information. Concerning earth stations, Mr. Hinchliffe said he and his neighboring home- owners could put in a community antenna, and he wondered to what extent that would conflict with the existing Times Mirror Cable franchise. Concerning what criteria should be used for the installation of earth sta- tions, it was the consensus of the Commission that they be treated as accessory structures on the ground and be excluded from setback areas. It was further the consensus that if the structure exceeds three feet in dia- meter it must be ground -mounted, but that anything smaller may be permitted on the roof. ESTATE ZONING STUDY Ms. Angus said on March 2, 1982, the City Council directed staff to conduct this study in response to a request by Mrs. Kelvin Vanderlip. She said staff contacted various cities throughout the State and that none of the cities surveyed had an estate zone, although several permitted second units in single family zones either by an estab--, lished zone or by a use permit. She said Los Angeles County allows one unit per the minimum lot size on large parcels, i.e. in a one unit per acre zone a five -acre parcel could be developed with five units. She said with the criteria suggested in the staff report, three properties could qualify for estate zoning and that all are located in the Moratorium area. Staff recommended that the Commission discuss the criteria for an estate zone: minimum lot size, number of additional units permitted, percent that must be low/moderate income or reserved for seniors, and the process required. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if an alternative would be to apply for a Residential Planned Development. Director Hightower said Mrs. Vanderlip would have to obtain a zone change for the density in order to apply for that. Mr. Hughes noted that under the County Zoning Ordinance Mrs. Vanderlip would have been allowed seven units. He said estate zoning implies that there is one large structure with small satellite structures and wondered how the City would prevent a structure from being sold. Director Hightower said legally the site would have to be subdivided in order to sell a portion of it. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Director Hightower said there were some benefits from estate zoning if the Housing Element goals are considered. 5/25/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- k� The Commission expressed concerns re the processing of this request at City expense rather than at the expense of the person making the request. There was concern about the lack of benefit other than satisfying a requirement for low/moderate income housing and alleviating the City from legal maneuver- ing and court battles. From a planning point of view the Commission could see no benefit in upzoning certain properties by creating a new zone and felt the proposal lacked any merit. There was cbncern--about-whether the renting/leasing of the structures violates the Subdivision Map Act. The Commission was also concerned that the units might not meet the Building Code as habitable structures and may pose a health hazard to the people living there. It was the consensus of the Commission that a subcommittee, composed of Mr. McTaggart and Dr. Brown, draft a response to the City Council clearly out- lining the objections of the Commission to an estate zone. Mr. Hughes felt the Commission also had a moral obligation to advise the City Council on all potential problems and should, therefore, include in its report the concerns regarding possible health hazards of the existing structures. At Mr. Hinchliffe's suggestion, Mr. Hughes directed staff to check with the City Attorney on whether or not the use on the subject property represents a violation of the Subdivision Map Act, or on what basis it would represent a violation of the Map Act. Dr. Brown and Mr. McTaggart were to have the draft response at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT 5/25/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 11:08 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, June 8, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. -5-