Loading...
PC MINS 19850226few' MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1985 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman McNulty at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: MCNULTY, BROWN, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: ORTOLANO Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner Steve Rubin and Secretary Ann Brenesell. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman McNulty acknowledged the following communications - 3 letters regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 90 and 1 letter from Rancho Palos Verdes resident Mary Knight regarding parking problems on public streets surrounding Marymount College. Staff was asked to follow up regarding these parking concerns. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES February 12, 1985 at the next Planning Commission meeting. By Commission consensus, the minutes of February 12, 1985 were tabled for further discussion OLD BUSINESS VARIANCE #111 30520 Palos Verdes Drive East Kerwin Associate Planner Steve Rubin gave a brief update and recommended a continuance of the public hearing to the March 26, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Dr. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen, and passed unanimously to continue the public hearing until the March 26, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. It was made clear, however, by a Commissioner that a decision would not be made based merely on the time frame. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #90 22 Cayuse Lane Parvis Parsa Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the staff report which recommended denial of CUP #90 based on concerns relative to septic tank capacity and intensifying use in an existing residential setting. However, he clarified that even if the CUP was denied, it did not mean the use would revert back to residential.It could still operate at its existing capacity Mr Rubin stated that prior to the meeting, Dr. Parsa's attorney had requested a 90 -day extension. Minutes February 26, 1985 Page Two A brief question and answer period ensued between Commission and staff regarding whether or not any revised plans had been submitted to staff since the last hearing in August 1984, and the pros and cons of allowing the applicant's request for an extension of time. If the application was denied, the question of a 90 day extension was mute. Also an inquiry arose whether there was an up- to-date state license. Staff iterated there had been no submittal of revised plans since August, 1984. It was also stated that there is no future plans to hook up that area to a public sewer system and lastly, staff noted it was a State licensed facility and could, therefore, only assume that its license was up-to-date. The public hearing was declared opened by Chairman McNulty. Raymond Winters, 1611 So. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 206, Redondo Beach, attorney, represented Dr. Parsa and requested a 90 -day time extension to revise the physical plans. He stated the septic tank capacity testing had been completed but septic capacity had not been reported yet. Commission concern centered on the length of time already given to the applicant and that revised plans had not yet been submitted to staff. Concern was raised as to why there had been no activity on the part of Dr. Parsa during that time. Residents speaking in opposition to Conditional Use Permit #90 were: Sandra Watkins, 1 Chapparal Lane La Von Malin, 9 Cayuse Lane Mr. and Mrs. Ron Clark, 24 Cayuse Lane Mariane Kipper, 5 ChapparalLane Earl Cooke, 2 Chapparal Lane Citizen objections related to increased noise levels, theft from boarding home employees, appropriateness to the surrounding environment, aesthetics, parked cars blocking emergency vehicle access, septic tank capacity, and the effect on surrounding property values. Mrs. Kipper stated the reason the residents were not interested in hook up to a local sewer system was because of the expense of the massive pumping required to access the system. When Mrs. Kipper was asked by a Commission member whether she would be in favor of a time extension, she stated no because there had been 2 public hearings to date and there had been no progress made by Dr. Parsa; and also that the issues had not changed. Dr. Parsa, 22 Cayuse Lane, stated the residence was a boarding home and not a convalescent hospital; that the residents were boarders and not patients and that they could care for themselves. He also stated he had only two employees and that they did not own cars; therefore, he believed parking was not a problem. Relative to noise, he felt there was also no problem. Discussion ensued regarding the number of employees. The Commission further questioned Dr. Parsa in this regard and asked if he considered the resident managers as employees. Minutes February 26, 1985 Page Three Dr. Parsa replied he had two employees plus management. A Commissioner was concerned whether or not residents could actually care for themselves or whether or not they required medical care. Discussion ensued relative to the type of facility that existed and state requirements. Following these questions, Dr. Parsa stated his State license had been renewed. A Commissioner reiterated the areas of concern to be the proposed expansion and its non -compatibility and the sewage disposal. It was stated that the City has institutionally zoned areas in Rancho Palos Verdes and the question was whether the expansion was appropriate in a residential area. Staff stated that by State Law the City cannot disallow a Boarding care facility to house six people or less. Rationale supporting Conditional Use Permit denial was based on the continuing concern relative to the sewage problem, an inordinate amount of time allowed to address the problem by the applicant with no attempt on the applicant's part to expedite matters and the appropriateness of expansion resulting in intensifying the use in a residential area. The Commission pointed out that this denial would prohibit the applicant from reapplying within one year. Dr. Brown moved to Adopt Resolution P. C. No. 85-5 denying Conditional Use Permit No. 90, seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. Chairman McNulty advised the applicant that the Planning Commission action was appealable to the City Council within 15 days of this date. NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE #115 'COASTAL PERMIT #11 4161 Maritime Drive - O'Brien The staff report was presented by Associate Planner Steve Rubin which recommended approval of Variance #115, Coastal Permit #11 subject to conditions in Exhibit 'A'. A Commissioner asked for an explanation as to the reason for the delay in applying for the Variance. Staff response was that the applicant believed that the existing conditions in the neighborhood were at variance with code standards and therefore he should not need a variance. Commission concern centered around not knowing the structural integrity of the deck and its projection and size. The public hearing was opened by Chairman McNulty. Mike O'Brien, 4161 Maritime, iapplicant stated that according to his builder permits were pulled. Minutes February 26, 1985 Page Four Responding to what services he had contracted for, the applicant stated reroof, interior walls, kitchen remodel and deck. He stated his intention with the deck, however, was to maximize the use of the property and that there already existed structures in the neighborhood less than 10 feet from the curb. The applicant in answer to how and when he was notified of the violation said he was notified by letter from Greg Fuz months ago. He stated he asked the builder to reply. In checking the records, it was discovered the applicant personally pulled the building permit after receipt of the code enforcement letter. The permit included the reroofing and interior remodel only; the deck was excluded and was so stated on the permit. Bill McLaughlin, 4157 Maritime, supported the Variance and stated he was probably the most affected by the deck; however, he had no objections and that in his opinion it fully conformed with the already existing neighborhood standards. Mr. Von Hagen moved to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to submit plans to Building and Safety, (paying for a plan check and a special inspection), seconded by Dr. Brown and passed unanimously. Results of the plan check and inspection are to be brought back to the Commission for further consideration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #96 VARIANCE #116 St. John Fisher Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the staff report which recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit #96, Variance #116, and Draft Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment #461 subject to the conditions of Exhibit W. Mr. Rubin explained the Variance related only to the parking and that there was no issue with height. Staff discussion concentrated on parking requirements supported by staff findings and the alternative of a reciprocal parking arrangement. He also stated similar Variances with reciprocal agreements have been granted previously. He also discussed the landscaping issue; the intent is to eliminate large expansives of pavement. Staff believed that the Commission should consider requiring improvements of equestrian trails along the Crenshaw and Crest Road frontages in keeping with the recently adopted Trails Plan and referred to Condition #7 of Exhibit 'A' and read new language as follows: "The applicant shall submit plans subject to the City's Trails Standards Plan, for approval by the Director of Environmental services, to improve designated equestrian trails within the public right-of-way along its property frontage along Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. In addition, the applicant shall post a cash deposit or bond for h Minutes February 26, 1985 Page Five the improvement of said trails in an Director of Environmental Services. of certain existing improvements." n u amount to be determined by the This will necessitate the relocation The issue of parking enforcement ensued between staff and Commission. Staff stated the difficulty of enforcement on a regular basis and the intent was to rely on the applicant's good faith effort as well as staff's response to complaints or violations, when they occur. Staff was asked if the Horsemens' Association was notified since they are interested in obtaining a loop. Staff replied yes they were notified about the hearing. i Further Commission questions arose which related to exterior lighting and reciprocal parking. The public hearing was declared opened by Chairman McNulty. Jo Anna Strada of John Bartlett Associates, 37 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia spoke in favor of Conditional Use Permit 96, Variance 116 and addressed the issues raised which related to Trails, Lighting, Parking, Landscaping and Grading. Regarding trails she expressesd a willingness to cooperate in posting a bond for equestrian trail improvements, and agreed to assess the lighting situation. Regardingap rking, however, she did not feel a reciprocal agreement with Sisters of Mary and Joseph facility was feasible because of the distance. However, she suggested the possibility of attendant/tandem parking for special functions. Regarding landsca in , she stated the necessity of a parking lot play area for school children(K-8} and that more landscaping could limit that area for playground space and also that it may further reduce available parking. Dr. Brown moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. Lengthy Commission discussion ensued relative to bonding and trails. Chairman McNulty moved to approve Resolution P.C. No. 85-6, subject to Exhibit A, changing condition #5 to read: "excessive parking shall be handled by the applicant in a tandem parking situation with adequate attendants anytime excessive parking is anticipated subject to periodic site review by staff" and revising .Condition #7 as discussed with staff bringing back the revised language; seconded by Dr. Brown . Commissioner's rationale in opposition to approving the Conditional Use Permit was centered around the inappropriateness of Condition #7 relating to improvement of the equestrian trail by the Church. Commissioners in favor of the Conditional Use Permit supported the requirement of Condition #7 based on past efforts relating to the Trail Plan and in addition, the applicant's expressed willingness to post a bond for improvements. 7 � Minutes February 26, 1985 Page Six Roll Call Vote: Noes: Brown, Wike Yeses: Von Hagen, McNulty It was pointed out by a Commissioner that the trail lies in the public right-of-way and an easement already exists so a trail would not be eliminated even if the City did not require the bond. It was recommended by Director of Environmental Services that the public hearing be reopened so that Mrs. Ortolano could participate in the hearing process and subsequent voting as she was absent from this meeting. After the original motion failed, Dr. Brown moved to reopen and continue the public hearing; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed on a 3-1 vote with Mr. Von Hagen disssenting. Roll Call Vote: Noes: Von Hagen Yeses: Brown, Wike & McNulty (for purpose of bringing the application back for another vote because of a deadlock and in the interest of time and resolving the issue was the reason for Chairman McNulty's vote) REPORTS STAFF Associate Planner Steve Rubin gave a brief update on Variances #113 and #114, both of which had been denied by Planning Commission. He stated Variance #113, applicant Steve Tondre was appealing to the City Council and Variance #114, applicant Mr. Leedy withdrew his appeal. COMMISSION Chairman McNulty reported on his attendance at the Palm Desert retreat. Chairman McNulty also iterated the Traffic Committee Chairman's concern about the parking problem at Marymount College. He asked staff to investigate the original C.U.P. to see if there was any language referring to "adequate parking". Director Hightower stated there was not. Mrs. Wike aired her discontent relative to the present format of the minutes and requested longer minutes in the future. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded and passed unanimously to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. to March 5, 1985 at 6 p.m. to a joint City Council/Planning Commission work session.