Loading...
10/11/1988 2�0 � MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA . October 11, 1988 _ An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills, was called to order in the Council Chamber at the City Hall/ Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, by Mayor Murdock at 7: 34 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11, - '" 1988 . ROLL CALL PRESENT: Counci2man Heinsheimer, Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh, Coune.ilman Pernell, C�uncilwoman Swanson (arrived at 7 : 37 p.m. ) , M�yor Murdock e--i � ABSENT: �*ane � � ALSO PRESEN�: •�errence L. �•�:.'�.ngex� City Manager � � � � irii�hael Jenk;n� City Attorney Betty Volkert Deputy City Clerk Ann Johnson Los Angeles Times Kunio Inoue Architect Jana Luhert Attorney Doug McHattie South Bay Engineering David E. Reynolds Attorney Mary Jo Hall Resident �r�.::� Hammonci Resident �`�i�'�o Yamamo�� Resident CONSENT CALENvi�R Councilman Pernell moved that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved and accepted as presented. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council held on September 26, 1988, an�i of an adjourned meeting held on October 10, 1988, were approved and accepted as presented. PAYMENT OF BILLS �emands Nos. 3190, 3192 through 3202, and 3204 through 3224, in the amount of $31,987.83 , were approved for payment from the General Fund. Demands Nos. 3191 and 3203 were voided. OLD BUSINESS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING CASE NO. 362 � The City Manager reported that, after the Council conducted a .field trip to invP�},..;ate this �ite, the City Council, at thei.r last meeting, voted �u .,-y��rove gr�n?-.i:�g a request for a Variance to the front yard G�*�=•-�- �aquirem�r,t �"z�i the purpose of construc�ing two reflecting parids rt. _ *:he setback �t 39 Crest Road West, per Zoning Case No. 362 . �taff was directed to prepare a resolution memorializing the Council 's decision. The resolution before the Council this even�nn is entitled "A RES�LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLI:TNG HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PO?�DS IN THE FR6NT YARD OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 CREST ROAD WEST (ZONING CASE NO. 362) " . � � �. . � Councilman Pernell moved that the resolution, as cited above, be ; approved and that reading in full be waived. Councilman Heinsheimer � seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. i � NEW BUSINESS � PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS ZONING CASE N0. 364 This is a request by Dr. Hooshang Pak for Conditional Use Permits � for a tennis court and recreation room at 9 Crest Road West. The �' Planning Commission, at their meeting on September 20, 1988, approved �t this request. "` The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission conducted three public hearings regarding this matter, and conducted two field trips to investigate the site. The City Manager indicated the location �f the proposed tennis court and recreation room on the site plan. It ,aas explained that there is a praposal �or complete rec��v��lopment of the property, i.e. , removal of the exis�ing structure and rebuilding a � zew structure, as well as a tennis court and recreatie�n room. The �riveway shown on the plan is not part of the approved �roposed plan. I'he existing driveway is the one that should be considered as part of �he approval. The Planning Commissior. approved the tennis court, with �onditions, as well as the recreation room, with conditions. Councilman Pernell confirmed with the City Manager that the :xisting house is proposed to be completely removed. That being the . :ase, Councilman Pernell questioned why an accessory us� is being i ;onsidered prior to having the main structure defined. Mayor Murdock agreed with Councilman Pernell, and remarked that the �olicy has always been to have the main structure approved prior t,o ipproval of an accessory structure. { � The City Manager informed the Council that preliminary plans for '; �he new structure have been approved by the Architectural Committee. K Councilman Pernell moved that the Council take jurisdiction of ;oning Case No. 364, a request for Conditional Use Permits for a tennis ;ourt and recreation room. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion. 'he motion carried by a vote of 4-1, with Councilman Heinsheimer :asting the dissenting vote. Councilman Heinsheimer commented that, since the Council is not .nvolved in the approval of main buildings, and, that, after reviewing :he Planning Commission minutes, it seemed that the Commission had :onsidered this entire project in great detail and had somewhat •edefined the project during the various phases of their consideration nd review, it was not obvious to him that it was necessary to take urisdiction of this matter. A public hearing regarding this matter was scheduled for the next ity Council meeting. . ONING CASE N0. 365 This is a request by Michael Migliaccio for a variance of the side ard setback for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall, and for i= • variance of the front yard se�hack for the const.ruction of an �dition to the existinq nonconfnrmii��� jtructure at 31 Chuckwagon oad. The Planning Com�m�ssion, at th.-��..Y ,;,e.eti.ng on Septer�.ber 20, 1988, o�.ed to 3pprove this rec�:��t. The City Manager explained that the ex3.sting structure has a onconfo�ming side yard setback an the north side of the property, and nonconforming f�ont yard setback. This request is for an zcroachment into the front yard setback of eight (8) feet gross or �ur (4) feet net, due to the curvature of Chuckwagon Road. In � - 2 - 21'�1� addition, the applicants are requesting to encroach eight (8) feet into the side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall to provide an access way along the north side of the property. The Planning Commission conducted three public hearings and an on-site investigation of this proposal, and the Commission recommends approval of both aspects of this request. Councilwoman Swanson asked for an estimate of the length of the proposed retaining wall. Mr. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, indicated that the wall would be between 30 feet and 35 feet long. Councilwoman Swanson asked what the height of the wall would be, and the City Manager estimated that it would be about five (5) feet high. Some Councilmembers questioned whether this was in compliance with the Architectural Committee requirements. The City Manager explained that, although he cannot speak for the Architectural Committee, generally, these types of retaining walls, i.e. , interior retaining walls that are only visible to the property owner and no one else, are given,e a little bit of leeway. The City Manager pointed out � that any approval by the City is contingent upon approval by the Homes � Association. � Councilman Pernell commented that the proposed addition seems to be � a modest one. The City Manager noted that if any additions are to be � made on this property, this is the only direction feasible. Q There being no further comments or questions, the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval was received by the Council for the file. ZONING CASE NO. 367 Zoning Case No. 367 is a request by Dr. Mohan Bhasker for a variance to the side yard setback requirements to allow for the construction of residential additions at 24 Chuckwagon Road. At their meeting on September 20, 1988, the Planning Commission voted to deny this request. This is a request for a variance of the side yard setbacks .on both the northerly and southerly sides of the property. As the existing house is currently configured, both side yards are conforming and are in excess of 20 feet. On the northerly side, the proposed encroachment is 9 feet, resulting in a side yard of 11 feet. The purpose of this encroachment is to add onto the master bedroom suite. On the southerly side, the applicant is requesting an encroachment of 3 feet into the setback for the purpose of adding additional square footage to the family room area. After conducting public hearings and an on-site investigation, the Planning Commission determined that the findings necessary to support the granting of a variance did not exist. There being no further discussion, the Planning Commission' s decision was received by the City Council for the file. ZONING CASE NO. 368 , This is a request by Mr. Thomas Vick to have the front yard redefined at 2720 Palos Verdes Drive North. The Planning Commission voted to approve this request, at their meeting on September 20, 1988. The Cit�� Manager explained that the applicant has requested redefinition of the lot lines on the property located at 2720 Palos Verdes Drive North. On the west side of the property .there is a _forty (40) foot easement, with a thirty (30) foot priyate drive that provides access to three other properties. The developmental pattern of this property has been relative to the private driveway access and not to Palos Verdes Drive North. The applicants have requested a redefinition of the lot lines. The redefined front lot line would be along the private driveway access, and the redefined side lot lines would be along Palos Verdes Drive North and the southerly property line. After - 3 - 212 conducting public hearings and an on-site investigation, the Planning �� Commission voted to approve this request, subject to the following ; conditions: � ! l. Any structure built in the side yard must be built a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement (Palos Verdes Drive North) , and cannot be closer than fifty (50) feet to the private roadway easement. 2 . The only structure that can be built in the northerly side yard (along Palos Verdes Drive North) is a stable or barn, and can only be used for quartering horses, livestock, or other such animals, and for equestrian purposes. The City Council received the Planning Commission's report of approval for the file. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLZSHING A SITE REVIEW PROCESS AND AMENDING THE ZONING CODE � The City Manager explained that the ordinance before the City Council is the one that the Planning Commission approved at their meeting on October 4, and that they forwarded to the Council for review, the purpose of which is to establish a site plan review process in the zoning ordinance and which would amend the zoning ordinance accordingly. This matter is before the City Council for the purpose of setting a public hearing. Staff recommended that the public hearing be scheduled for the first meeting in November to give staff enough time to find an adequate location. i A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, November 14, 1988, at � 7 : 30 p.m. OPEN AGENDA Mrs. Mary Jo Hall, 7 Portuguese Bend Road, asked if the proposed ordinance that was approved by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council is the same draft that was presented at the last public hearing held by the Planning Commission. The City Manager commented that there were a few modifications that were made to the ordinance at the time the Planning Commission approved the proposed ordinance that is before the City Council this evening, and Mrs. Hall was then given a copy of the proposed ordinance that was approved by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 361 Zoning Case No. 361 is a request by Mr. Hitoshi Yamamoto for a variance to allow for the construction of residential additions encroaching into the established front yard at 14 Southfield Drive. The City Manager pointed out to the City Council that a lengthy 3ocument had been submitted shortly before the meeting by Mr. and Mrs. Yamamoto's attorney, Mr. David Reynolds. It was noted by several Councilmembers that they had not had an opportunity to review the 3ocument. Mayor Murdock suggested that public testimony regarding this matter be received, and that, afterwards, a field trip be scheduled. In the interim between now and the next meeting, the Councilmembers can review the document that was presented this evening. The City Manager briefed the Council regarding this matter. It was �xplained that the variance request is for encroachment into the �stablished front yard. The applicants are proposing to expand the �xisting residential structure an additional 2,900 square feet. Part �f this proposal is to remove the existing stable (which has already �een done) , and to replace it with a garage. The existing garage would �e abandoned as a garage, and would become a part of the main - 4 - . 21'��' building. This matter was considered at several public hearings held by the Planning Commission, and the Commission conducted two on-site investigations. After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission determined that the property was such that the findings necessary for the granting of a variance could not be made. Therefore, the Planning Commission voted to deny this request. Subsequent to that, the applicants appealed the decision of the Planning Commission, and the matter was set for a public hearing this evening, by the City Council. Mr. David Reynolds, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Yamamoto, addressed the Council, and commented that the lengthy document which he submitted deals with a number of constitutional and statutory construction issues. Mr. Reynolds explained that, as far as he and his clients are concerned, there is some question as to whether or not a variance was necessary in this instance. The reason his clients were directed to seek a variance was based upon an interpretation of the zoning code. The zoning code sets forth two limitations on the size of structure that can be built: (1) it cannot exceed the allowable. lot coverage percentage; and, (2) it cannot encroach into the setbacks. Mr. Reynolds commented that his clients' proposal would not violate either � requirement. Further, Mr. Reynolds commented that there appear to be � two definitional statutes in the City's zoning code that define yard � and front yard, and which seem to be used to determine setbacks. He � stated that there is nothing in the zoning code that indicates that if someone wants to build into their established front yard that a � variance is required. Therefore, their position is that, Q constitutionally, a variance was not required. Furthermore, assuming that a variance were necessary, they feel that the Planning Commission abused its discretion in denying the variance. One reason that was cited by the Planning Commission for denial was that the proposed expansion was not in accordance 'with the General Plan or in keeping with the rural character and ambience of the City. Mr. Reynolds stated that the exterior of the proposed expansion is an exact duplicate of the house that now exists, i.e. , it will have the same exterior but will be larger than the house that now exists. Mr. Reynolds mentioned that the interior would be of an oriental nature since Mr. and Mrs. Yamamoto are of Japanese heritage, however, he feels that the design of the interior should have no bearing on the compatibility with the General Plan and, ultimately, on the determination of the findings for a variance. Further, Mr. Reynolds remarked that, in his opinion, factual findings were not cited by the Planning Commission to justify their conclusion. There was also concern expressed by the Planning Commission that the proposed additions would result .in a residence too large and congested for that lot. However, after the Planning Commission's denial, one of the neighbors sent an unsolicited note to Mr. and Mrs. Yamamoto indicating that they were looking forward to the proposed expansion •and that they felt it would enhance the neighborhood. There was also concern expressed by the Planning Commission that the future stable location was inadequate. Mr. Reynolds remarked that even though Mr. and Mrs. Yamamoto probably will never have horses, if his clients comply with the zoning requirements by providing a location for a stable and comply with the size requirements for a stable, in addition to providing for horse easements which are not required, this should not be a reason for denial. Commissioner Heinsheimer clarified with Mr. Reynolds that the findings did not cite the design of the interior as a reason for denial. � Councilwoman Swanson asked that the proposed expansion and stable be staked prior to the field trip. A field trip to the site was scheduled for Saturday, October 15, at 8: 30 a.m. Mr. Kunio Inoue, architect for the project, expressed his frustration at continually having to stake the property. He pointed out that this will be the fourth time that he will have staked this property, and explained to the Council that the Yamamoto's dog pulls - 5 - 214 ; the stakes down. The Council explained to Mr. Inoue that this should ! be the last time that he would have to stake this property. Mr. Inoue i indicated that he would have the property staked prior to the field , trip. Councilman Heinsheimer verified with Mr. Reynolds that, if this matter is resolved through some internal procedure of the City, to the satisfaction of all the parties involved, then, the legality issue would no longer be relevant. Mr. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney, explained that Mr. Reynolds' clients are reserving their rights to contest the validity of the proceedings but, at the moment, are proceeding with the appeal process in good faith. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ABSENCE FROM THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING Councilman Pernell requested that he be excused from the next City Council meeting. He will be out of town. � LITERACY CONFERENCE Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh reported that she attended a literacy conference at Marymount College, and remarked that it was very interesting and worthwhile. CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE It was noted that the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee would be meeting December 1, 1988, for the purpose of electing 2 members and 2 alternates to the Transportation Commission. Christine Reed and Jacki Bacharach are running for reelection, and Hal Croyts is running for a seat as well. Mayor Murdock stated that the voting 3elegate should be made aware of the wishes of the Council. Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that the Council take the position of supporting the local candidates. Councilwoman Swanson pointed out that this matter was not specifically listed on the agenda, and it would, therefore, be inappropriate to take any action regarding this matter this evening. It was also pointed out that in the near future there �ill be several vacancies occurring on various Commissions and Boards, �nd it was suggested that a motion to instruct the Voting Delegate for the City Selection Committee regarding the Council 's wishes on who to support for the various upcoming vacancies, be placed on subsequent agendas. �IATTERS FROM STAFF JIEW COMMITTEE APPLICANTS The City Manager reported that the City Council subcommittee would �e interviewing the View Committee applicants on October 13 . 7ltimately, three will be recommended to the City Council for final ;onsideration. 3ANITARY SEWER ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS To date, seven applications have been received. Coincidentally, it is proposed that this Committee consist of seven members. However, the :ity Council has the right, not only to accept, but to deny any of the �pplications, and is not obligated to accept all applicants simply because the number of applicants is the same as the proposed number of �eats on the Committee. �OCC MEETING The City Manager announced that Councilwoman Swanson would be ittending the League of California Cities meeting in San Diego on - 6 - 21'5�' October 17 and 18, and recommended that the City Council consider designating her the voting delegate for the purpose of exercising the City of Rolling Hills' right to vote. Councilman Heinsheimer so moved. Councilman Pernell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Staff was directed to prepare the appropriate documents. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor Murdock requested a brief closed session to discuss personnel matters, and recessed the meeting at 8: 38 p.m. for that purpose. MEETING RECONVENED The meeting was reconvened at 9:29 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Murdock adjourned the meeting at 9 : 30 p.m. to Monday, October 24, 1988, at 7: 30 p.m. � � � �iL� � r m City Clerk Q APPROVED: Mayor - 7 -