Loading...
PC MINS 19830222M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting February 22, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 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 Planners Sandra Massa Lavitt and Alice Bergquist Angus, Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR approving the minutes of the meeting By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby of February 8, 1983, as presented. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15264 Mr. Putrino said at the meeting of 43 Avenida Corona January 25, 1983 the Commission Applicant/Landowner: Melillo returned this item to staff for verification of the septic tank and leach field location. He said the location of the septic tank and seepage pit for lot #2 are within the boundary of the proposed unimproved lot #1 and that the facilities must be relocated within the boundary of lot #2, pursuant to Building Code require- ments. He said the proposed lot split complies with the City's Development Code and General Plan and the State Subdivision Map Act. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution, which included the addition of a condition referring to the septic tank. Mr. Hinchliffe noted that this was a continued public hearing. There was no one present to speak. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Dr. Brown arrived at 7:38 p.m. Mr. McTaggart said it appeared that lot #2 was largely fill and questioned whether the lot was adequate for relocating the house, garage and septic tank, while maintaining all of the requirements. He was concerned that the lot split may create lots which would require variances for development or because of soil conditions would be unbuildable. He said the sewage system in the area may not be adequate to handle all of the lot splits occurring. He also thought the building pad on lot #1 was relatively small. It was his opinion that now that the location of the septic tank is known, staff should analyze the project carefully to be sure that each lot can meet the setback requirements and the requirements for the sewage system. He said it did not appear that lot #2 was large enough or stable enough. Mr. Putrino referred to the display map and said both lots would accommodate the proposed improvements. He said the buildable area on lot #1 was 3400 square feet. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to direct staff to analyze the project and provide a tentative footprint and to direct that an additional soils report be prepared. Mr. Hughes thought the soils report at this time was an unnecessary expense. Mr. McTaggart revised the motion to refer the item back to staff to determine whether a relocated septic tank, seepage pit, house and garage would fit on lot #2, and a new septic tank, seepage pit, house and garage would fit on lot #1, without the need for any type of variance. The request for a soils report was removed from the motion. The motion was seconded by Dr. Brown and carried, with Mr. Hinchliffe dissenting. VARIANCE NO. 88 Dr. Brown suggested changing section 5 Martingale Drive #2 of the resolution approving this Landowner/Applicant: Morin project to read ".....since other property owners in the same district could be allowed the same improvements under such similar circumstances." Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 83-2, as amended this evening, thereby approving Variance No. 88. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15475 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for 5907 Peacock Ridge Road the conversion of a duplex, constructed Applicant: Ray Mathys in 1980, to a two -unit condominium. Landowner: Joe Anthony She said the site was granted a conditional use permit in 1978 for the construction of a duplex along with applications for a variance for reduction in the lot size and a minor exception permit for a reduction In the front setback. She said the site has adequately handled the development of a duplex and the applicant neither intends to change the physical structure nor proposes any changes of any kind. She referred to the goals outlined in the Housing Element and said the vacancy rate should be considered in the decision to allow a condominium conversion. She said statistically the number of rental units would be altered by .14 percent. She said the Commission should discuss the mayor issues of this application, which is the goal set forth in the General Plan. She said if the Commission approves the application in concept, a resolution and conditions of approval would be prepared for the next meeting. Mr. Hughes asked if the vacancy rate statistics presented tonight took into consideration the new annexation area. Ms. Lavitt said the statistics were based solely on the City prior to annexation. She said the new information is available but that calculations have not been done yet. Public hearing was opened. 2/22/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff Drive, applicant, said he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to close the public hearing. Mr. McTaggart said the Commission was required to consider vacancy rate statistics and, therefore, should have current information. Mr. Hughes concurred. Mr. Hinchliffe noted that the application was submitted prior to the annexation. Dr. Brown did not think the conversion would have a significant impact. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe NOES: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McNulty, to continue the public hearing and direct staff to bring back the updated statistics relating to the housing mix for the entire City as of this date. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart NOES: Brown, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 15 Ms. Angus said this Code amendment Second units was initiated on November 16, 1982 by the City Council in response to the Housing Element goal regarding the promotion of a range of housing types. She noted that recent State law will require cities to permit second units. She said at the January 11, 1983 Commission workshop the Commission raised a number of questions requiring legal counsel, reached a consensus on several other issues (as listed in the staff report), and considered adding other conditions (also listed in the staff report). She reviewed the City Attorney's opinion in response to Commission inquiries (as stated in the staff report). She also reviewed interpretation sheets from the Department of Housing and Community Development and the League of California Cities. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing and take public testimony relative to the proposed Code amendment and potential conditions that may be appropriate. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Angus said the City Attorney responded to the most recent law and that she would provide the Commission with a copy of the memorandum that the City Attorney recently prepared. Public hearing was opened. Luella Wike, 29172 Oceanridge Drive, said the second bill that passed eliminated the age requirement. She listed the issues of the proposed ordinance which she thought required careful consideration: 1) There are no specifications for mobile homes; 2) Parking requirements are not very clear; 3) There is no minimum distance established between the primary residence and a detached unit; 2/22/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 3 4) There is no requirement for compatibility with the external appearance of the primary residence; 5) There is no minimum size lot specification; 6) A maximum of two bedrooms is listed rather than a maximum of two people; 7) There is no requirement for a covenant with the property owner that the requirements for use of the second unit will be carried out and, therefore, no way to revoke the permit if the conditions are not met; 8) The ordinance does not include a sunset clause, allowing for elimination if it does not work out. She said there is a report from the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, a government -funded research group at University of California, Berkeley. She said the group is in the process of eliminating current zoning laws to create more utilization of present housing and she urged the Commission to obtain a copy of that report. Jeannette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow Road, representing the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations, said they took a position on December 2, 1982 opposing the Code amendment. Speaking on behalf of John Arand, she said the opposition to the granny housing was because of the potential impact to the City as a result of the zoning changes being contemplated. She said the Council of Homeowners Associations was concerned about the impact on the road network. She said they would be looking at the condi- tions in tonight's staff report before commenting further. John Vanderlip, 99 Vanderlip Drive, was concerned about the current nonconforming uses. He suggested adding a section to the ordinance recognizing the existing nonconforming units in the City so that they would have protection in the future. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hinchliffe said the Commission had a reasonable period of time to work on this item and suggested a workshop be scheduled. Dr. Brown said the points brought up tonight by members of the public should be looked at. He also suggested the presence of the City Attorney at a workshop. Mr. Hughes suggested a two-step process, that the Commission first have a work session to discuss the matter, and that the City Attorney be requested to attend a second work session. He said he would like further information on what other cities are doing since it is an on-going process. He also requested information from similar cities, such as Tiburon and Belvedere. He requested copies of the most current law. Ms. Lavitt said the Commission meeting of March 8 would allow time for a work session. Mr. Hinchliffe said whatever information could be sent to the Commission prior to sending the regular agenda packet would be appreciated to allow more time for review. He noted to the audience that this matter would be taken up again on March 8 at a work session and that there would be no further public notice. 2/22/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- • 0 GRADING APPLICATION NO. 642 Mr. Shepherd said the request was to 2404 Colt Road allow a five and one-half foot Applicant: Superior Construction cut on an 80 percent slope for a Landowner: Ray Perrault proposed deck. He said the majority of the proposed deck would be placed upon the level pad and that the remainder would extend over the existing slope. He said the applicant proposes to cut into the slope to create a spa equipment service walkway under the deck and also proposes the placement of four sono tubes at the end of the deck. Staff recommended that the Commission review the applica- tion and make a determination on the applicant's request to exceed the grading criteria. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Shepherd said the original plan showed a gentle slope and that apparently it was not caught by the Building Inspector. He said the site has not been officially designated as Open Space Hazard zoning. Ray Perrault, 2404 Colt Road, said the drawing before the Commission was not to scale. He referred to the photographs on display. He said they wanted to get the equipment out of the view of everyone and needed access down to the equipment. Jim Nedelkow, Superior Construction, applicant, discussed the project and various alternatives. Dr. Brown said it was clear that the Commission was being asked to consider something different than what was presented in the staff report. He moved to continue the item and have staff bring back a report that reflects exactly what the applicant is requesting. Mr. Perrault said they would like to go with what was submitted. He said they already have permits to build the deck and that his understanding of this meeting was to obtain a grading permit to put in the sono tubes. He said it was his understanding after discussing the issue with staff .that the retaining wall was necessary. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to deny Grading Application No. 642 because it is significantly in violation of the Code. Dr. Brown said it was clear from the testimony this evening that the extension of the deck could be achieved with less grading impairment than what is proposed. Mr. Hughes said the grading application as proposed is excessive and he was not convinced that the deck as shown was necessary. He said they could continue the item and allow the applicant to come back with new drawings. The applicant and landowner agreed to come back with new drawings. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the previous motion to deny the project was withdrawn and instead a motion was substituted to table the matter until the applicant has submitted suitable drawings. RECESS 2/22/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 9:45 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:57 p.m. with the same members present. -5- S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 37 Mr. Shepherd said on November 10, AMENDMENT RENEWAL 1981 the Commission approved a 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South temporary overflow parking lot. He Applicant: Marineland Amuse- said the applicant is requesting a ments Corporation renewal of the amendment and that no changes have been proposed in the application. He said, however, since that time some of the landscaping has died and that it would be replaced and a regular watering program would be scheduled until the plants are well established. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the request. He said the Commission should determine the expira- tion date and either approve the extension to November 10, 1983 or to its last extension date of November 10, 1984. After a brief discussion, by motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 83-3, thereby renewing the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 37 for a temporary overflow parking lot with a final expiration date of November 10, 1984. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 AMENDMENT Ms. Lavitt said the request was for Tract 38848 (Crest and Crenshaw) private streets and security gates Applicant: Cayman Development Co. for the subject tentative tract. She said access to the pedestrian trails is from Crenshaw Boulevard, near the tennis courts and at the passive park off of Crest Road. She said there was no pedestrian access to the trail system at any other point within the tract. She said the San Pedro Hill development was recently granted private streets by the City Council. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the request. Mr. Hughes said the application raises serious questions about residential safety in the City and that perhaps what was required would be increased police protection, better public communications, or gating the entire community. He suggested tabling the matter and directing staff to bring back some recommendations on how this issue might best be studied. He said perhaps they should review police reports on the number of burglaries on private versus public streets. He said the Commission should develop a mechanism to adequately consider requests of this nature. He said this was a serious matter and that the Commission should be in a position to make a strong recommendation to the City Council based on fact. Dr. Brown supported Mr. Hughes' suggestion. Mr. Hughes said the Commission should know if there is a significant difference in the crime rate in the various areas of the City and if there is really a difference with gated private areas. He said if there is evidence that private roads make a measurable difference, those statistics should be known. He said this information was needed for this and future developments. Mr. Hinchliffe thought it might be more appropriate to take action on this request with the provision that if the Commission's decision is overturned the City Council should direct staff to obtain the above requested informa- tion for the Commission's review. He said the Commission should simply request that the City Council authorize the Commission to look at the issue because of its importance. Mr. McTaggart thought the matter should be looked at now and agreed with Mr. Hughes. Dr. Brown proposed a motion to table this item until the Commission has been given direction from the City Council on its request to study the issue of private versus public streets. 2/22/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Hinchliffe said they should request the Director of Planning to go to the City Council to request authorization to have staff study the issue. He said the Commission needed clarification from the City Council on public versus private streets. Dr. Brown withdrew the above motion and instead moved to table this item and request that the Director of Planning present to the City Council the Commission's desire to have clarification on the issue of private versus public streets and that said clarification should be determined with a study by staff or whatever other method the Council thinks would achieve that clarification. The above motion was withdrawn and Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to more firmly say that the Planning Commission with the aid of staff wants to offer its time and make it available to find the necessary expertise to truly evaluate this issue so that the Commission can make its recommendations and the Council can make its decisions based on facts. This motion carried, with Mr. Hinchliffe dissenting. COMMISSION REPORTS The Commission expressed regret over the upcoming departure of Elaine Doerfling, the Environmental Services secretary and minutes secretary for the Commission, who has accepted a position elsewhere. Mr. Hughes reported on the recent seminar he attended entitled Making Better Use of Urban Space. ADJOURNMENT 2/22/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 10:48 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 8, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. -7- q