Loading...
PC MINS 198303080_- (,')+) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting March 8, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, Hinchliffe LATE ARRIVAL: McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planners Sandra Massa-Lavitt and Alice Bergquist Angus, and Assistant Planner Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of the February 22, 1983 meeting, as presented. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15474/ Ms. Lavitt gave staff report. She stated CUP No. 84 that the Commission originally heard this 5907 Peacock Ridge Road item on February 22, 1983. She stated Applicant: Ray Mathys that the vacancy rate for the City of Landowner: Joe Anthony Rancho Palos Verdes is 2.6. She added that there are no apartment units in Eastview. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:41 P.M. Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff Drive, R.P.V., applicant, appeared to answer any questions of the Commission. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the issue before the Commission at the previous meeting was a subdivision, and they had postponed a decision on that, pending updated statistics. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 83-4, thereby approving the request for the condominium conversion. Mr. McTaggart stated that approval of the condominium conversion would allow for the possibility of 0 setback, lot splits, etc. He believed this would be setting a precedent for the city. Mr. Hughes believed the motion was out of order, due to the fact that they did not have the resolution before them. Ms. Lavitt replied that the resolution and the conditions would be brought to the next meeting. Dr. Brown withdrew his motion, and Mr. Hinchliffe withdrew his second. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, to recommend that staff bring a resolution and conditions to the next meeting, thereby approving the condominium conversion. Mr. Hughes asked if the CC&R's will be drafted before the resolution or after the resolution. Ms. Lavitt replied that the resolution is drafted and approved prior to the drafting of the CC&R's. She added that the applicant had informed her that there would be a third party trustee who would be involved in the CC&R's. Mr. Hughes asked staff how they plan to handle the drafting of the CC&R's. Ms. Lavitt replied that they will be reviewed by the City Attorney, the Director of Planning, and the Department of Real Estate. Mr. Hughes asked if the conditions will come before the Commission for review prior to their adoption. Ms. Lavitt replied in the affirmative. Mr. McTaggart stated that a two -unit condominium conversion is not appropriate for Rancho Palos Verdes. He stated that if it had been a condominium, the Commission would have dealt with it in a different manner. He stated that the intent of the Condominium Ordinance was if a property is converted to a condominium, it is to provide some of the amenities of a single family home. He added that it was originally presented to them as a duplex, and he felt that it still was a duplex. Mr. Mathys stated that the property is 5,000 square feet. Dr. Brown asked if the project would meet all of the requirements for a condominium if it were approved as a condominium conversion. Ms. Lavitt replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the Commission must determine whether or not the project would have a significant impact on the housing stock. Mr. Hughes stated that the California State Department of Housing was incorrect when they stated that potential income from single rental units on residential properties will allow prospective homeowners to qualify for lower mortgage rates. Based on applicant's testimony, Mr. Hughes stated that there would not be a significant impact if the Commission were to assume that only one unit is owner -occupied and the other unit is a rental. Mr. McNulty stated that approval of the project in question will set a precedent. Vote on above motion: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe NOES: Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart ABSENT: NONE Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the motion failed, thereby disapproving the two -lot subdivision. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 642 Ms. Lavitt stated that the grading 2404 Colt Road application was presented to the Applicant: Superior Construction Commission on February 22, 1983, and at Landowner: Ray Perrault that time the Commission tabled the item for revision. She stated that the applicant is proposing the placement of four footings into an 80 percent slope. The only grading activity would be for the excavation of the footings. Staff's recommendation was for the Commission to review the application and make a determination on the applicant's request to place footings into an 80 percent slope. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- March 8, 1983 Mr. McTaggart questioned the location of the new spa equipment and whether it was placed far enough from the property line to avoid noisy disturbance by the motor. Karen Perrault, 2404 Colt Road, R.P.V., landowner, stated that at this time they have a small portable spa, and its noise is not disturbing. By motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, to approve Grading Application No. 642, finding that there are special circumstances which make the placement of the Sono tubes on an 80 percent slope for this project. Approval is subject to the Building Department assurance that there is structural integrity for the existing deck. The Commission also approved if required, five Sono tubes, rather than the four sono tubes proposed by the applicant. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 33 Mr. Putrino stated that the applicant is (Revision) proposing a new house/garage footprint for Three Park Place, Lot 2, Tract 32110 Lot No. 2 of Tract 32110. Staff's Applicant/Landowner: Steven and recommendation was to approve Conditional Phyllis Murphy Use Permit No. 33 (Revision) and adopt the Resolution since the proposed project complies with the criteria of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Steve Murphy, 24871 Luna Bonita Drive, Laguna Hills, landowner, stated that he and his wife were seeking approval of the project for their own single family residence. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, R.P.V., appeared before the Commission in behalf of the landowner. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve Planning Commission Resolution 83-4, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit 33, as revised. Approval is subject to the Crenshaw curb cut being restored before the curb cut is placed into Park Place. Ms. Hightower stated that the issue of curb cuts was not before the Commission. Mr. Hinchliffe asked why the issue of curb cuts was not before the Commission. Ms. Hightower replied that curb cuts do not come to the Planning Commission; however, they may rule on it. She noted concern for the wall on the property and the gate into the property. Dr. Brown asked if the five-foot wall had been approved. Ms. Hightower replied that it was questionable. Mr. Hughes suggested that this item be tabled for two weeks to allow staff to gather more data. Dr. Brown withdrew his motion, and Mr. McTaggart withdrew his second. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, to table Conditional Use Permit No. 33 (Revision) for two weeks. RECESS At 9:00 P.M. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 P.M. with the same members present. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 643 Mr. Putrino informed the Commission that 49-1/2 Rockinghorse Road the applicant is proposing to construct Applicant: Elmer A. Katinszky an access drive on a "J" shaped easement. Landowner: Zoltan Katinszky On October 18, 1982, Grading Application No. 623 was approved for a single family residence at 49-1/2 Rockinghorse Road. To construct the drive into the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES calm March 8, 1983 3 existing slope, the applicant is proposing to cut a maximum of eight feet, fill to a maximum of 14 feet, and move 936 cubic yards of earth. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review the application and make a determination on the applicant's request for construction of an access drive that will exceed the grading criteria. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the road that has been cut adjacent to the site which leads down to the canyon bottom. Mr. McTaggart requested that staff determine how the grading occured, who did it, and take action against those persons. Elmer Katinszky, 6118 Venice Boulevard, Los Angeles, applicant, stated that there will be no actual importation and exportation of material. He stated that there was an error in the staff report, that being, that the maximum created slope is 1-1/2 percent. He had acquired the signature of the adjacent property owner who accepted the grading extending out of the easement. He added that he must have the required length of the retaining wall. Mr. Hughes asked if the access is adequate for the fire vehicles. Mr. Putrino replied that it is not adequate. Mr. McNulty stated that the easement serves three lots. The applicant will be using one. The Commission could approve it with a deed restriction or comment that they are below standard for fire access and alert any new owner. Ms. Lavitt stated that they would obtain a clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the issues to consider are the length of the road, the exceeding grade, fire requirements, and whether or not the design is the best design. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, to research alternatives for Grading Application 643 with relation to the length of the road, the exceeding grade, fire requirements, and whether or not the design is the best design. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 644 Mr. Putrino said that on February 10, 2244 Daladier 1983, the Environmental Services staff Applicant: Frank Politeo and approved a sideyard wall for 2244 Daladier Associates Drive. This wall was to be a regular Landowner: Tom Hart sideyard garden wall retaining under three feet of soil. On February 15, 1983, the applicant submitted Grading Application No. 644 in order to fill in the south side of the wall and increasing the retaining wall height to 613". Staff recommended denial of Grading Application No. 644 since the proposed retaining wall exceeds the maximum height allowed, and require the applicant to restore the cut and compact the soil. He added that there has been some erosion towards the front of the property. The soil should be recompacted to eliminate this dangerous condition. Frank Politeo, 255 W. 5th Street, San Pedro, applicant, stated that the concrete gutter next to the house was beginning to erode, as was the slope adjacent to an existing 2-1/21 retaining wall, which was constructed out of stones and not reinforced. Mr. Hinchliffe asked the applicant if he were proposing to put a fence on top of the retaining wall. Mr. Politeo replied in the negative. By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, to approve Grading Application No. 644 subject to the condition that the applicant work out with staff the details of backfilling along the wall so that the wall retains dirt to the maximum six-foot high at the end nearest the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- March 8, 1983 A7L .J SIGN PERMIT NO. 161 5975 Armaga Spring Road Applicant/Landowner: Mount Olive Lutheran Church 6 Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the applicant was aware that staff recommended denial of the sign permit. Mr. Putrino replied in the affirmative. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, to deny Sign Permit No. 161. RECESS At 10:05 P.M. a brief recess was called. The meeting was reconvened at 10:17 P.M. with the same members present. WORK SESSION - Second Units Mr. Hughes believed that the Commission should concur with No. 2, page 3, paragraph 1, of the City Attorney's memo, i.e. draft an ordinance prohibiting second units. Dr. Brown wished staff to reappear before the Commission with a potential ordinance. Mr. McNulty recommended drafting an ordinance prohibiting granny flats. Mr. Hinchliffe declared that there was a consensus that some kind of an ordinance would be drafted. Mr. Hughes believed that no second units on lots steeper than 35 percent should be allowed and parking should be looked into carefully. Mr. McTaggart stated that outside stairwells should not be allowed. Dr. Brown stated that all that needs to be done is allow a kitchen facility and allow somebody to rent. Mr. Hughes stated that one of the units should be owner -occupied. He asked if this item had been advertised in the newspaper. Ms. Hightower replied that only legal notices had been published in the paper concerning this item. Mr. McNulty suggested putting a questionnaire in the city paper requesting input from residents. He proposed drafting a letter to the City Council asking their opinion of the Commission's recommendations. Mr. Hughes favored putting a questionnaire in the city paper. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that staff approach City Council, informing them that the consensus of the Planning Commission is to proceed with an ordinance that excludes seond units. After further discussion, the Planning Commission decided that before approaching the City Council a press release should be published advertising another continued public hearing. Mr. Hinchliffe directed staff to submit a draft of the press release at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. McTaggart noted concern for sitting under lights in the Council's Chambers which are not properly shielded. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES At 11:14 P.M., it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 22, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. -5- March 8, 1983 S