Loading...
PC MINS 19830426M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting April 26, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: McNulty, Hinchliffe, McTaggart LATE ARRIVALS: Brown, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planners Sandra Massa Lavitt and Alice Bergquist Angus, and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Joseph Gamble. CONSENT CALENDAR Item A. Minutes of April 12, 1983 were approved as presented. Item B. Parcel Map No. 14495 -Extension was approved. OLD BUSINESS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 15 Ms. Angus presented the staff report SECOND UNITS to the Commission with the recommenda- tion to take public testimony, continue the public hearing, then discuss the testimony received and at the previous meeting. Also recommended was that the Planning Commission should form a consensus on the type of ordinance to proceed with, and direct staff to draft and present an interim report to the City Council outlining the intended position of the Commission. Gilbert Rowe, 2444 Sunnyside Ridge Road, addressed the Commission stating that the residents in Sunnyside Community Association felt very strongly that no second units should be built in areas with septic tanks. Jeannette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow Road, representing the Council of Homeowners Association stated that at the last board meeting they passed a motion that the second unit ordinance should be very restrictive to avoid class- ification as no -growth. Muriel Titzler, 3 Ginger Root, addressed the Commission stating she was against the second unit amendment, but if the ordinance is necessary that the City should consider the size of the lot (no less than 1 acre) and that the roads be wide enough to handle extra traffic. Mr. Frank Weiss, 30711 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners said that any ordinance should require compliance with local C.C.&'R.'s and that a Sunset Provision be provided to limit second units after 5 or 10 years. Chairman Hinchliffe said he was not sure if the City can mandate compliance with local C.C.&R's. It is usually up to the homeowners associations. Elza Cortes, 29681 Highpoint Road, representing the Miraleste Hills Homeowners Association stated that the association was against second units. Mr. McTaggart moved to continue the hearing, Mr. McNulty seconded and it was unanimously carried. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that perhaps the Commission could address some of the issues and begin to outline what the Commission is going to present to Council. Mr. McTaggart stated that it has never been his opinion that we are a no -growth city. He further stated that he felt that a blanket second unit ordinance would do damage to all the work done in providing a good environ- ment, good roads, etc. We should not allow second units on private streets, streets with septic tanks, and lots with a density of 4 units/ acre or greater. It seemed to him that second units could destroy property values. With all the reasons to limit them, he is not sure we should have them at all, adding that he was willing to chance it with no second unit ordinance. Mr. McNulty stated that we should adopt an ordinance not allowing second units; that we could find many reasons to adopt a no second unit ordinance. Mr. Hughes stated that we should adopt an ordinance prohibiting second units. Mr. Hinchliffe mentioned that he believed the City should have an ordinance allowing second units, but a tough one. Mr. Hughes stated that he felt that staff should draft a letter to the City Council stating the Commission's position and requesting comments and City Attorney time to help draft an ordinance. By motion of Mr. McNulty, seconded by Mr. McTaggart and unanimously carried, staff is to prepare a draft letter to the City Council to be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting for review and forwarding to the City Council. GRADING NO. 643 Jonathon Shepherd gave his staff 49-1/2 Rockinghorse Road report with the recommendation that Applicant: Zoltan Katinszky Alternative 3 be approved with conditions. When asked about drainage Mr. Shepherd replied that the Building Department needs more information on drainage and that these requirements will be handled by the Building Department. Mr. Hinchliffe asked Mr. Shepherd, with Alternative 3, would the drainage be workable? Mr. Shepherd replied that nothing is noted that would not work. Zoltan Katinszky, 6542 Oceancrest Drive, applicant, addressed the Commis- sion. He stated that he has worked with the Fire Department and staff and hoped that he had provided a reasonable solution. By motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McNulty it was unanimously passed to approve design Alternative 3 with conditions recommended by staff. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 26 Mr. Gamble presented the staff AMENDMENT report. Dr. Brown asked Mr. Gamble Tennis Lighting if he was recommending 1/2 hour more Applicant: Peninsula Racquet Club Tuesday through Friday on north courts. Mr. Gamble replied yes. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the racking sheets represented the time before 8:00. Mr. Gamble answered that the racking sheets showed other times, most anaylsis was done after 8:00. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- April 26, 1983 2 Mr. Hinchliffe asked if we could reduce the number of hours on the southern courts. Mr. Gamble replied that staff did not provide a detailed analysis of the 8-9 hour or address southern courts, but the information was included on the racking sheets. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that he did not understand the applicant's delay and asked Mr. Gamble if it was due to the lack of the racking sheets. Mr. Gamble replied yes. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if staff had correlated the evidence presented by Mr. Schweiger with the racking sheets. Mr. Gamble replied that there was a spot check by staff to verify certain time periods and to compare that with the random visits that staff made to monitor when the lights were turned on and turned off. Dr. Brown asked about the question regarding the utilization of the southern courts. Mr. Gamble stated that the southern courts were not monitored during the trial period, only northern courts were monitored. The public hearing was opened with those in support of the extended lighting hours speaking first. Maury Myers, 2541 Via Sanchez, addressed the Commission stating that the lighting was curtailed on Monday because of the maximum test hours given by the Planning Commission, and that the Board of Directors felt that the price to put the shields on three courts ($2,200.) was too expensive for a test time that may not result in approval. He felt that they needed lights until 10:00 on all 12 courts, and that they have not received any complaints from neighbors. He added that the club was open to any com- promises the Commission might suggest. Mr. McNulty asked if the Board had taken under consideration the cost of shields not only for testing but for permanent installation. Mr. Myers commented that they do have the lights but they objected to the additional shields. Our board felt that if the Planning Commission might extend the hours that the club might feel it worth the expense of additional lights. The following spoke in opposition to the extended lighting. Judy Meikle, 30846 Via La Cresta, stated that she has lived there since before the club was built and that her house is now for sale and potential buyers do not like the glow of the lights. When asked if there was reflected glare, she stated yes, especially in fog and of course, during clear times too. She gets the lights from courts 1, 2, 6 and part of 5 and the back courts. Robert King, 30764 Via La Cresta, addressed the Commission stating that he would like to go on record opposing the increased lighting hours. The lights are and will remain a nuisance. Russ Schweiger, Via La Cresta, addressed the Commission stating that he had already submitted some information and that he would like to point out that this test period was for six months and that during that time we had good weather and we should assume that the club during this period did everything possible to utilize the courts. He further stated that the club did not submit any information on Saturday and Sunday utilization. Mr. Schweiger went on to say that he and his neighbors did a direct survey and proceeded to state his figures. He further stated that there was a great difference between their figures and those of the club. The results of 36 time checks between 9-10 showed there was not one night that all 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- April 26, 1983 5 i courts were used at the same time. The problem is lighting and the noise that goes along with it. Dr. Brown asked Mr. Schweiger if there were shields on the lights what would be his opinion. Mr. Schweiger replied that there were no shields that could really cut the lights to an agreeable base. Mr. Myers again addressed the Commission stating that they had submitted data on every single day including Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the racking system. Mr. Myers explained that when a member arrived at the club they signed up in the club house for a court and played for one hour, then they came back to the club house and signed up again for another hour if they so wished. Mr. Hinchliffe asked Mr. Myers if other courts are lighted what would make people show up and use the other six courts. Mr. Myers replied that with the racking system people know when the courts are busy. They told members in their newsletter that they had the lights on until 10:00. The lights on the lower courts were on until 8:00 and on the higher courts until 10:00. The courts were very heavily utilized. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that after looking at the staff's statistics and the applicant's submittal he did not feel the courts were in high demand. Mr. Myers said that they certainly were utilized between 8-9. It is impossible to have 100 percent utilization. Mr. McTaggart asked Mr. Myers to explain if people are aware of court availability, and how do you explain the drop off between 8-9 from your figures of 90% to 30%. Mr. Myers replied that when you only give them an hour to play and they cannot get a full hour in after 8:00 they stop coming. Mr. McNulty asked Mr. Myers if he agreed with Mr. Schweiger's figures. Mr. Myers replied no, that he did not agree with Mr. Schweiger's survey. He futher stated that there was a lot of different ways to interpret data, and he had not seen Mr. Schweiger's data. Mr. Schweiger again addressed the Commission stating that Mr. Myers mentioned that they had submitted data for Saturday, Sunday and Monday, and that he had not received data for those days. Mr. Schweiger asked Mr. Gamble if he had records for Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Mr. Gamble replied "no". The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Hughes made the motion that the Commission approve staff's recommenda- tion with the condition of changing Tuesday to Monday. There was no second. Motion failed. Mr. Hughes moved to deny recommendation and continue lighting as it is now. Dr. Brown seconded only for the purposes of discussion. Dr. Brown stated that he was concerned with the lights. The Beber shields on the Atkinson court made a great difference in the "halo" effect and that he could not agree to any additional hours without light shields testing. He suggested that if the applicant wants extended hours, the latest light shields should be installed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- April 26, 1983 Mr. Hughes stated he was against any more test periods unless we can get the two groups' bias out of it and they hire an independent testing party. Dr. Brown stated that the Commission set forth conditions and the applicant did not comply with them. Mr. Hinchliffe asked Mr. Gamble why were Saturday, Sunday and Monday not included. Mr. Gamble replied that there were no changes on those da ys'1 . Since no change in hours occurred on those days, staff did not require the applicant to submit that data. I Mr. McTaggart stated that he felt that Mr. Schweiger's concept of extending to 12 courts, possibly does reduce the percentage. He further stated that the applicant did not want to shorten the time and did not want to use shields. They have let down their membership by not doing this. The main problem, he added, is the lights and glare. He could support the motion. Mr. McNulty stated that he thought the obligation was on the applicant to prove the use and necessity of the amendment. I would support the motion as presently made, he added. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the Commission should modify the hours outlined in the staff recommendation except Saturday and Sunday and suggested the hours for Monday through Friday. In return, the applicant get the shields for six months on all 12 courts. Mr. McTaggart stated that he would like to refer to type of shields not using the name of a specific manufacturer. Mr. Hughes stated that the shields are not going to make any difference. On the other hand, he stated he had initially moved to pass staff's recommendation and did not get much response with one change because there has been demonstrated a need for an adequate use of the tennis courts. He thought it unreasonable to expect 100% utilization of the tennis courts as the time approaches 10:00. He added that some appropriate conditions could be applied such as no matches started after 9:00, or that the courts where occupancy is falling to zero have the lights turned off. To keep this going with more tests and surveys does not make sense. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would support the second motion but could also support the first motion with modifications. Dr. Brown stated he was willing to support the motion before the Commission. Mr. McNulty said he was willing to support a reasonable motion. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the motion before the Commission was to leave the hours as they were before. The motion was passed, with Mr. Hinchliffe dissenting, to leave the hours as they now stand. Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. motion passed. CUP 86/VARIANCE 89 Silver Spur Commercial Development Applicant: A. Levitt Rti�*, * �*, � Joint Meeting with City Council Public/Private Streets PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Motion passed to continue this item. The Commission agreed that the meeting date for the joint meeting should be scheduled for May 11, 1983. -5- April 26, 1983 19 �► i COMMISSION REPORTS Encroachment Permits/ The Planning Commission directed Dumpster Permits staff to draft a report to City Council asking them to give direction to Public Works on encroachment permits and policy on dumpsters. At 9:50 P.M., it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES #603XA19 -6- April 26, 1983