Loading...
9/25/1989344 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA September 25, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rollin Hills was called to order at 7:33 p.m., in the Council Chamber at th City Hall/Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rollin Hills, California, by Mayor Leeuwenburgh on Monday, September 25 1989. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Heinsheimer, Councilwoman Murdock, Councilman Pernell, Mayor Leeuwenburgh Councilwoman Swanson (excused) Terrence L. Belanger L. D. Courtright Ray Hamada Betty Volkert Ann Johnson Anne La Jeunesse Grant Kirkpatrick Susan Van Every Mr. See Myun Kim Mrs. Kim Debbie Kim Marion Ruth W. B. Stringfellow Shirley Tyndall City Manager City Treasurer Principal Planner Deputy City Clerk Los Angeles Times Peninsula News Kirkpatrick Associates Russell E. Barto, A.I.A Resident Resident Resident Property Owner Resident Resident Councilman Pernell moved that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved and accepted as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock, and carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of an adjourned meeting of the City Council, held'on. September 11, 1989, were approved as written. PAYMENT OF BILLS Demands Nos. 3992 through 4025, in the amount of $51,977.40, were approved for payment from the General Fund. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The Financial Statement for the month of August, 1989, was accepted as presented. OLD BUSINESS There were no matters of Old Business for the Council' consideration. NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTIONS.- AUGUST 15, 1989 ZONING CASE NO. 379. MANSOOR MIRSAIDI. 1 MAVERICK LANE This is a request for a Variance to encroach into the side yard and front yard setbacks to construct residential additions to the existing residence at 1 Maverick Lane, Lot 31 -SK. 315 The City Manager reported that following many public hearings and a couple of site visits, the Planning Commission voted to grant the variance to the side yard setback and to deny the variance to the front yard setback. There is currently a nonconforming front yard setback of twenty feet (201), and the Commission felt that to expand the nonconformity would have a detrimental visual impact from the street. Since the filing period for an appeal by the applicant had not yet expired, the Council felt that this matter should be held on the agenda. Councilman Pernell so moved. Councilman Heinsheimer seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ZONING CASE NO. 400, DAVID CLARK. 11 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST This is a request for a Variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing barn, and a request for a Site Plan Review to determine the compatibility with the site of the proposed additions to the existing CO residence and barn at 11 Packsaddle Road East, Lots 29 & 30 -SF. Lo The City Manager reported that the Commission determined that the 3 existing barn was constructed without the appropriate approvals and m permits and, thus, .is illegal. Therefore, the Commission voted to Q deny the request for a variance to the front yard setback to construct an addition to the existing barn, thus rendering the Site Plan Review application incomplete due to the lack of an approved stable site. Hence, the request for Site Plan Review was held on the Planning Commission's agenda. Although the appeal filing period has not expired, the Council could take action and, then, if the applicant were to file an appeal the matter would be brought back to the Council. The statutory limitations remain in effect, and the property owner would not be deprived of their rights of appeal. There being no further discussion, the Planning Commission's report of denial of the request for a variance to the front yard setback to construct an addition to the existing barn was received by the Council for the file. ZONING CASE NO. 402. DANA MACKAY. 4 BUGGY WHIP DRIVE This is a request for a Site Plan Review to determine the compatibility of the proposed new residence with the site at 4 Buggy Whip Drive, Lot 244 -MS. The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission approved this request for Site Plan Review. The subject site is vacant and has had no residential structure built on it previously. The applicant is proposing to build a new residence of approximately 8,400 square feet, with a 1,200 square foot garage. Following discussion of the proximity of the proposed development relative to the neighboring properties, the Council received the Planning Commission's report of approval for the file. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 396. MARION RUTH. 5 OUTRIDER ROAD This is a request for a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback for a proposed stable site, and a request for a Site Plan Review to determine the compatibility of the proposed residential reconstruction with the site at 5 Outrider Road, Lot 80 -EF. The Planning Commission granted the variance and approved the site plan at their meeting in July. Subsequently, the Council took jurisdiction because of concerns regarding the proposed stable location, and scheduled a field trip and public hearing, which was continued to this meeting. - 2 - 346 Mayor Leeuwenburgh opened the public hearing. A staff report was presented by the City Manager, who reported that during the Council's on-site investigation it was suggested to the applicant that the proposed stable site be relocated in the rear yard. Thus, the applicant has submitted revised plans indicating the stable location in the rear, near the garage. The proposed stable location in the rear complies with the City's rear yard setback requirement and is also outside the twenty-five foot (251) easements, however, it is located nearer to the residence than is permitted by the code. The code states that a stable must be located not less than thirty-five feet (351) from any residence and not less than twenty-five feet (251) from any property line; the revised plan shows the stable location approximately sixteen feet (161) from the garage, thus, raising a structure separation issue. Mr. Grant Kirkpatrick, architect for the project, addressed the Council, and commented that he had misunderstood the Council's suggestions' during the field trip and was under the impression that it would be acceptable to locate the stable in the rear yard as long as it was determined that the stable would not need to meet the separation requirement. In his interpretation, the garage is not habitable space, and, thus, the stable would not be subject to the structure separation requirement of thirty-five feet (351). Councilman Pernell commented that the policy has been to consider any structure attached to the main residence as habitable space. In his opinion, the code should be adhered to and the separation distance maintained. Councilwoman Murdock concurred with Councilman Pernell, and commented that it is conceivable that, in the future, the garage could be converted to living space, and, thus, would be in conflict with the proposed stable site. This could impose a hardship on any potential property owners of this site, in the future. Mr. Kirkpatrick pointed out to the Council the difficulties created by the topography and shape of the lot. The City Manager pointed out that on the revised plan, the stable site has been located twenty-five feet (251) from the property line (as required by the code) and, coincidentally, outside the Community Association easements, which are twenty-five feet (251) wide in this location. If the stable were to be moved into the easement, assuming the Community Association granted a license agreement for this use, it would then be in violation of the City's requirement that a stable be at least twenty-five feet (251) from the property line. Mr. Grant Kirkpatrick also noted that the proposed stable site is approximately seven feet (71) higher in elevation than the main residential structure. The stable would be virtually a full level higher than the garage. Mayor Leeuwenburgh noted that the vicinity map does not show the location of structures on the neighboring properties, and indicated that she would like to see the placement of the neighboring structures and their relative distances shown on the vicinity map. Councilman Heinsheimer commented that, presumably, with respect to the structures on the surrounding properties, the current proposed stable location is better situated than moving the stable into the easement. Therefore, it would seem that that option would be less desirable. The widths of the easements of the neighboring properties were discussed, and Mayor Leeuwenburgh inquired as to the locations of the stables on the neighboring properties. If they are in the same general location as this proposed stable site, the impact may be somewhat mitigated. - 3 - 347 Mayor Leeuwenburgh explained,that because of the large easements, it was thought that this may be a possible solution. However, since the easements are under the jurisdiction of the Association, it would be necessary for the applicant to obtain a license agreement from the Community Association for the use of the easement. Councilwoman Murdock remarked that another possible solution to consider may be to reduce the size of the structure. Mrs. Marion Ruth, applicant and property owner of 5 Outrider Road, addressed the Council, and explained that she had been informed, unofficially, that it would be very unlikely that the Association would grant a license agreement for a structure in the easement. Mrs. Ruth stated that she would be agreeable to including a provision, if the Council were to grant approval, stipulating that the garage never be used for living space. Mayor Leeuwenburgh explained to Mrs. Ruth that the Council felt that she. should pursue the possibility of obtaining a license agreement'from the Association since there are unusually large r' easements in this location. LO Councilman Heinsheimer commented that, for future reference, it might be beneficial to make a clarifying statement or policy CO determination regarding the 'interpretation of Section 17.16.011 (C). Q The City Manager indicated that the interpretation would be ultimately defined in the Council's findings. Mr. Bill Stringfellow, Member of the Board of the Community Association, addressed the Council, and stated that the Association has never granted a license for a building structure in an easement. The message from the entire community is that they do not wish to see the easements reduced, and they do not want the Association to allow building in the easements. Therefore, the Association attempts to respond accordingly. Furthermore, Mr. Stringfellow agreed with Councilman Pernell, and feels that the thirty-five foot (351) separation distance should be maintained. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to Monday, October 9, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The Council also requested that the applicant submit a vicinity showing all structures, including stables, on the adjoining properties. DEVIATION FROM THE AGENDA For the convenience of the audience, the Council chose to deviate from the agenda outline, and proceed with the Open Agenda. OPEN AGENDA Mr. See Myun Kim, 8 Buggy Whip Drive, wished to address the Council regarding the development at 4 Buggy Whip Drive. He explained that he had been out of town during the Planning Commission's public hearings regarding this matter. The Mayor explained to Mr. Kim that staff could review the specifics of the proposed development after the meeting. Mrs. Shirley Tyndall, 65 Eastfield Drive, inquired as to the status of the proposed filming ordinance. Staff indicated that a staff report would be presented under Matters from Staff. MATTERS FROM STAFF FILMING ORDINANCE The City Manager reported that the Rolling Hills Community Association, per their letter dated September 21, 1989, requests that the City Council not adopt a motion picture filming ordinance, which - 4 - would allow for a permit procedure for motion picture production in the community. Rather, the Association would prefer that this type of activity be considered to be a commercial activity and, as such, would be prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance, or, that the City adopt an ordinance absolutely prohibiting this type of activity within the community. In the City Attorney's opinion, the City's Zoning Ordinance, as it is currently written, can be interpreted to specifically and expressly proscribe this kind of commercial activity, and, therefore, an additional ordinance would not be necessary. Councilman Pernell explained to Mrs. Tyndall that the reason the Council was originally considering an ordinance of this type was because the preliminary opinion of the City Attorney was that there was some preemption at the State level that allowed this type of activity. After further review, the City Attorney determined that there is sufficient control within the current framework of the City's Zoning Ordinance to proscribe such activity. However, another aspect of controlling this type of activity is enforcement. And, part of the enforcement involves controlling entrance into the City. Mr. Stringfellow commented that, in the future, when someone requests a permit from the Community Association for entrance into the City for this type of activity, they will be denied entrance and informed that the deed restrictions prohibit any type of commercial activity. Councilman Heinsheimer remarked that it would be beneficial to have a letter from the Rolling Hills Community Association stating that it is their intention to strictly enforce the deed restrictions relating to commercial activity. f I The City Manager noted one caveat, i.e., when the Association became aware of such an illegal activity the City would be notified so that the property owner could be informed of the violation. RETURN TO AGENDA OUTLINE The Council returned to the agenda as outlined. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ANIMAL NUISANCE PORTION OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE Mayor Leeuwenburgh opened the public hearing. The City Manager briefed the Council, and explained that this matter was before the Council at their September 11, 1989, meeting. At that time, the Council directed staff to make several modifications to the draft ordinance amending the Animal Control Ordinance. In addition, the City Attorney drafted an alternative ordinance. The major difference between the revised original draft ordinance and the alternative ordinance is that it includes a definition of and provision for "animals running at large". Staff recommended that this alternative ordinance be the one that the Council consider. A second aspect of the alternative ordinance is that the "due process" provisions have been streamlined. Mayor Leeuwenburgh invited comments from the audience. No one spoke to this matter, and Mayor Leeuwenburgh closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the alternative draft ordinance. Councilman Pernell requested that this be forwarded to the Humane Society for their review. Councilman Heinsheimer objected to Section 4 of the proposed alternative ordinance. He felt that this went beyond the original scope of the problem to be addressed, and that this is inappropriate at this time. 5 - 349 The City Manager explained that Section 6.44.060 was added to deal with the problem of individual animals as opposed to animals in packs. The City Manager indicated that Section 6.48.020 could be retained, and the appropriate wording to address the problem of single dogs could be incorporated into the existing Section 6.48.020. Section 6.46 will deal specifically with the nuisance of "Barking Dogs and other Noisy Animals". Following a lengthy discussion, the Council decided to eliminate Section 4, which added a new -Section 6.44.060, entitled Doqs Runninq at Larae and Destrovina Property, and to incorporate the appropriate language into Section 6.48.020. Councilman Heinsheimer moved introduction of the alternative draft ordinance, amended as discussed above, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RELATING TO BARKING DOGS, AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE", and to waive the reading in full. Councilman Pernell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, STATUS OF GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE, Councilman Heinsheimer asked for a report on the progress of the General Plan Committee and consultants on the revisions to the General Plan. Mayor Leeuwenburgh reported that the General Plan Committee met with the consultants last Monday, September 18. The Committee was informed of the process, and discussed the Housing Element. At their next meeting, the Committee will be ' discussing the Seismic Element. The Committee and consultants are meeting regularly, and progressing smoothly* PENINSULA FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY, Mayor Leeuwenburgh reported that she attended the Peninsula Friends of the Library party for major donors. They expressed their appreciation for the City's contribution. RETIREMENT PARTY FOR REID BUNDY, Councilwoman Murdock asked if the city would be represented at the retirement party for Reid, Bundy. Mayor Leeuwenburgh announced that Councilman Heinsheimer would be attending and presenting Mr. Bundy with a plaque. The City Manager will also be attending. MATTERS FROM STAFF - CONTINUED RECYCLING PROGRAM The City Manager reported that there is not a specific plan to report upon, at this time. He will be meeting with the General Manager of Browning-Ferris Industries next week, and, hopefully, will have something to report at the October 9 meeting. it seems that one unresolved issue is the disposal of the by-products of the recycling process. CATV The City Manager spoke with Steve Fowler, and was informed that this matter is still before the President fora decision. CLOSED SESSION It was determined that a Closed Session was not required. 9 350 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Leeuwenburgh adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m., to Monday, October 9, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor - 7 -