Loading...
PC MINS 19830628M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 28, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Vice -Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: McNulty, Hughes, McTaggart ABSENT: Hinchliffe LATE ARRIVAL: Brown (7:35 P.M.) Also present was Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Joseph Gamble. COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of June 14, 1983 B. Tract No. 15086 - One Year Extension C. Tract No. 8941 - One Year Extension By motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McNulty, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed as presented. OLD BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report NO. 77 - with staff's recommendation to approve R. Blum Resolution No. 83-9 denying the applica- 28503 Highridge tion. Antenna Mr. McTaggart opened the public hearing. Richard Blum, applicant, 28704 Golden,,Meadow, Rancho Palos Verdes, addressed the Commission stating that he needed more time and that he hoped to apply in the future with a new proposal for this project. Dr. Brown asked when would the F.C.C. make a determination. Mr. Blum stated thathe did not know. That there were seven applicants and it could take from six months to a year. Dr. Brown made a motion to close the public hearing, Mr. Hughes seconded, motion passed. Dr. Brown moved to adopt Resolution No. 83-9 denying the application with the statement for the records that the decision was done without prejudice. Mr. Hughes seconded, motion was unanimously passed. Mr. Hughes made the motion that staff draft a letter to the F.C.C. stating that any successful candidate for Channmel 44 could apply for proper antenna permits and that any application received would be reviewed under the guidelines of the City's Development Code. Dr. Brown seconded, motion passed. GOLDEN COVE PROJECT Ms. Lavitt stated that the applicant requested a continuance of the public hearing to July 12, 1983 and that the applicant would like to schedule another work session. The Planning Commission tentatively scheduled a work session for Monday, July 18, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. #600X - A23,24 LJ NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE NO. 91 Delpit 27530 Longhill Dr. Addition in Rear Setback 2 Mr. Shepherd gave the staff report and recommendation to deny since none of the required findings could be made. Dr. Brown asked Mr. Shepherd if it was still unknown how direct access to garage would affect the floor plan and was there a problem with a second story addition. Mr. Shepherd stated that he still did not know the affect to the floor plan and that he could not see any real problem with a second story addition. Mr. Hughes stated that there were quite a few other ways of doing the project. Mr. McTaggart asked about information in the staff report regarding the neighboring property's existing garage that is 18 inches from sideyard property line. Mr. Shepherd replied that it was approved by the County when the area was under County jurisdiction. Bernard Delpit, landowner, 27530 Longhill Drive, addressed the Commission stating that much thought had been given to the placement of the addition and due to his wife's medical problems a second story addition was not feasible. He further stated that the front area of property had a problem with access to the house and would block sunlight. Mr. Delpit also added that the most logical place for the addition was in this back corner and that the Fire Department had visited the house and had no problem with the location of the addition. Craig Freeman, No. 8 Dapplegray, the designer, addressed the Commission stating that converting the garage to a master bedroom and adding another garage would block sunlight and that the floor plan submitted was the best they could come up with. Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing, Dr. Brown seconded, motion passed. Mr. Hughes stated that he had some problems, as did staff, with the findings and that he thought there were other places that the addition could be built. Mr. Brown stated that he agreed with Mr. Hughes that this was not an appropriate location. Mr. McNulty stated that he felt other alternatives should be sought. Mr. McTaggart stated that he could not make all the findings. Mr. Hughes moved to adopt Resolution No. 83-8 denying Variance 91, Dr. Brown seconded, motion was unanimously passed. VARIANCE NO. 92 Muckel 6024 Ocean Terrace 5 Ft. Sideyard Wall in Setback Mr. Gamble gave the staff report with the recommendation to deny this appli- cation. Mr. Gamble also explained drawings showing street visability, height of the original fence and indication of the possibility of moving the pool back and re- locating the jacuzzi. Mr. Hughes asked how much wall was to removed and how high the wall is now.. Mr. Gamble stated that the wall varied but was close to 42 inches. The playroom wall encroaches into the intersection visibility triangle a little but that would be allowed by the Code. 6/28/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES #600X - A25,26 Mr. Hughes asked if staff wanted the wall removed or partial removal or a wrought iron fence. Mr. Gamble stated that if granted under a Minor Exception Permit, it would have to be a fence. He stated that when the pool was approved the fence had to be approved at the same time. The wall also had been started. Staff contacted the contractor and the County for a stop work order. The County would not order a stop work on a structure that the County allows. He further stated that staff sent a letter to the owner requesting that no work be done on the wall, but construction had continued. He stated that when the pool was approved the fence had to be approved at the same time. The wall also had been started. Staff contacted the contractor and the County for a stop work order. The County would not order a stop work on a structure that the County allows. He further stated that staff sent a letter to the owner requesting that no work be done on the wall, but construction had continued. Dr. Brown asked how far had construction gone before the letter. Mr. Gamble stated that three rows of cement block had been laid and at that time it did not violate the Code. John Muckel, landowner, 4924 Sharlynne Lane, addressed the Commission stating that when the house was approved he did not have a pool on the plans, just a 42 inch wall and that he now asked to have a wall to 5 - 6 feet because of the pool. Mr. Muckel also stated that he tried to get the brick layer and plasterer to halt work but that they ignored his request. He further stated that there is a 42 inch wall and he would keep that all around the lot but that he would like an extension from 42 inches to 60 inches only around the pool area for privacy. Mr. McTaggart asked why staff had taken so long to approve the Minor Exception Permit. Mr. Gamble stated that there had been a problem with application issuance and due to work load of staff. Mr. McTaggart asked about the visibility triangle at the corner. Mr. Muckel stated that that portion could go down to 42 inches and that the triangle of visibility was not much of a problem and that it could be worked out. Dr. Brown stated that the plans show that it ranges to 5 feet, 6 inches. Mr. Gamble stated that the wall goes from five to six feet including pilasters. Mr. Muckel stated he did not want to extend the wall higher except at the pool. Dr. Brown asked how much space was needed to bring it into Code. Mr. Gamble stated that the pool would have to be moved almost to the house. Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Dr. Brown seconded, motion was unanimously passed. Mr. Hughes stated that he could not make any of the findings. Dr. Brown stated that he could not make any of the findings especially since the applicant could relocate the pool. Mr. McTaggart asked what distance into the setback could a Minor_ Exception Permit allow for the wall. Mr. Gamble replied three feet, twenty percent reduction into fifteen foot setback. 6/23/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 3 aAnnx — n,)7 00 Mr. Hughes moved, seconded by Mr. McNulty to deny Variance No. 92.= After further discussion the motion was withdrawn. Dr. Brown moved to table this Variance and for the applicant to work with staff on this application, Mr. Hughes seconded, motion passed. REPORTS Staff Director Hightower introduced Mike Jenkins, with the City Attorney's Office, to the Commission stating he was present to discuss the Second Unit Ordinance. Mr. Jenkins addressed the Commission stating that the City had three options: (1) do nothing which allows Second Units; (2) prohibit them with specific findings as to why there would be an adverse impact; or (3) prohibit them in certain areas. He further stated that in order to ,prohibit outright the findings must be strong, such as: 1. Absence of sewer system; 2. Geology instability; 3. Narrow streets, no parking; 4. Not designed for density characteristics of multi -family zoning; 5. Unavailability of public transportation; 6. Geologic problems. Mr. Jenkins further added that if you specify adverse impact you must also acknowledge that it may limit the housing opportunities in the region and should positively state the things that have been done by the City in this area. There was discussion of the various options. Mr. McTaggart suggested and it was agreed that the Planning Commission have a work session at the end of each meeting to work on the Ordinance, beginning July 26, 1983. Dr. Brown asked staff to keep them updated on other cities ordinances. ADJOURNMENT At 9:45 P.M. Mr. McNulty moved to adjourn. Dr. Brown seconded, motion unanimously passed. 6/28/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-