Loading...
PC MINS 19840508MINUTES Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 8, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the Hesse Park Community Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard by Chairman Harvey Brown. PRESENT: BROWN (departed 11:30 pm) MCNULTY, ORTOLANO VON HAGEN, WIKE CONSENT CALENDAR Extension of Conditional Use Permit Dr. Brown requested the No. 27 (Tract No. 32977) Minutes of April 24, 1984 Resolution No,, P.C. 84-13, Wonder be moved to the end of the Minutes of April 24, 1984 agenda. A motion was made to approve the Consent Calendar omitting the minutes by Mr. McNulty and seconded by Mrs. Ortolano. It was agreed to move Variance No. 103 as the first order of business. VARIANCE NO. 103 The staff report was presented Figlewicz - 2141 Fairhill Drive by Associate Planner Steve Rubin. In March of 1984, the City approved Minor Exception Permit No. 151 to allow a room addition to encroach into the reqOired 20 foot front setback four feet. In reviewing the, application, staff noted an existing retaining wall with pilasters running along the front property line, turning in and running parallel to the interior side pr6perty line. Photos were displayed and discussed. No permits were on file. The applicants informed staff that the wall was existing when they purchased the home. Mr. Rubin said the application is twofold: 1) request to exceed 42 inches within the 20 foot front setback and; 2) to expand a non- conf6rming structure. Staff thinks in light of the facts, and -the applicant's rq�qqe�$tjp_conform _to= _ Code that the request is justifiable; staff recommends -opting of Resolution P.C. No. 84-15 approving Variance No. 103. Dr. Brown asked when the property was acquired. Mr. Figlewicz answered, June 1982. Dr. Brown stated that it was constructed predating annexation to the City. Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. Dr. Brown asked that staff reword #1 finding to include prior to annexation to the City. Mr. McNulty moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-15 amending finding #1; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. VARIANCE 702 The Staff report was presented by Lyon - 6424 Via Colinita Assistant Planner Gary P8dr0n1. He gave background as to how the wall was brought to the attention Of the City; it was code violation #952' The initial contact was OM 3eptmebSr 28, 1984, the second letter was sent on October 12, 1984, a third letter on November 17, 1984. He said the District Attorney set a meeting with Mr. Lyon on January 17, 1984, however, Mr. Lyon did not appear, A second letter was sent from the District Attorney. A second meeting was then Set Up for February 22, 1084 with the D.A. but Mr. Lyon again did not appear' Mr. PedrVnf pointed out that the application for the variance was dated and signed by Mr. Lyon On June 13, 1983, three months before the initial code violation letter was s.eDt and eight months before the application was received at the Environmental Services Department. Mr. P8droni noted that the Variance application was included in the agenda packets as requested by the [o00fSSioD and copies of site plan reviews that show no Nall as part of any project. He also included building permits showing Mr' Lyon as owner -builder and Mr. Inferrera as Architect. Information was given regarding a wall at 6460 Via COlinitd as was requested by Commission for staff fol7ow-up. The owner was contacted and stated the wall was at least 20 years old. Mr' Pedroni also discussed in detail staff's opinions about the drainage considerations, aesthetic results, need for a 5` wall to surround the pool and safety. Visibility s also discussed and staff thought the excessive height of the wall was a problem. Photos were displayed and discussed. The wall is not in conformity with the General Plan, the wall does not conform to the Development Code, and presents a major visibility problem. Staff thought the potential liabilities associated with the City allowing such a potentially unsafe situation are great. Lenghty discussion continued regarding Gordon SiPbert'3 memo from the Public Works department noting what is necessary justification for encroachment permits. Mr' PedrOni said there was a misunderstanding When they went over the plans the first time and Mr. Siebert thought the wall was a retaining wall. Robert Lyon, 6424 Via C0lin1ta" addressed the question Of the wall being built before the application for Variance. He said he prepared the application and gave it to his contractor. He said he understood it was all taken Care of. He said he applied for all other permits and that he did not try to "bootleg" the wall; it was not intentional to violate the law. He then addressed the merits of the wall. He showed photographs of other homes with similar walls. He felt the visibility was not a problem' VIA Minutes 5/8/84 Page Three Dr. Brown asked Mr. Lyon why construction was started before applying for permits. Mr. Lyon said he thought no permits were necessary for a garden wall. Mr. Von Hagen asked Mr. Lyon why he never responded to the numerous - letters sent by the City and the District Attorney. Mr. Lyon responded that he had moved out temporarily and that he was only aware of one piece of correspondence. He said his contractor and architect said everything was being taken care of. He said when he received a notice of violation he realized nothing had been taken care of. The wall was built without proper Variance application. He said he had done what he thought he was supposed to do and that he was betrayed by his contractor. RECESS 8:20 pm RECONVENED 8:25 pm Mrs. Marilyn Lyon said she wrote the check for the Variance in June and it was just recently returned after her husband discovered the Variance was not filed. She said they have gone by the record for 2 years. Dr. Brown asked who returned the check. She said the original contractor gave it to the architect and the architect returned it. Mr. Martin M. Jaconi, 6436 Via Colinita, long-time resident of the area, a.nd architect thought he could help Mr. Lyon with an amicable solution. He said there was a bureaucratic foul up and certain procedures were not followed. He felt the overall job was aesthetically pleasing and�,ad_d_ed to tFe_nei'_4F6_o_rFo_od and also felt visibility was not a problem. Mrs. Ortolano discussed the merits of the project but stated that it was her opinion that the Commission should deny the Variance and require the wall to be taken down altogether because the wall clearly encroaches in the public -right - of way. The Commission agreed that there was a visibility problem, there was no justification for the wall encroaching into the right-of-way, and the Variance decision is based on the merits of the case not on the fact that it was constructed illegally. The consensus was to change Section 4 of the Resolution to read: height and placement and to change Section 5 to read... gates/pilasters/arch be removed. Mrs. Ortolano made a motion to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-15 thus denying Variance 102 with language as amended; seconded by Mrs. Wide and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown advised this was appealable to the City Council within 15 days. 3 Minutes 5/8/84 Page Four EASTVIEW GENERAL NO. 14 ZONE CHANGE 13, AMENDMENT 18 PLAN AMENDMENT CODE regarding commercial signs from the 6 The staff report was presented by Associate Planner Alice Angus. She stated the item was before the Commission previously on March 27, 1984 and it was decided to split the portion of the Code Amendment remainder of this item. She said staff has revised the General Plan Amendment to reflect the accurate size of the proposed cemetary land use area. Also the Code Amendment has been revised to specifically allow a mortuary as a permitted use in the cemetary zone. She said Council received a request to allow a Women's Aerobic and Fitness Studio in the Western Avenue commercial area. Staff recommends this and also other similar uses including, i.e., dance school, computer school, and similar activity or education uses, with a Conditional Use Permit. She said she had been in touch with the Sanitation District and spoke to Mr. Frank Dair regarding the $1/year lease proposal. He spoke of a short term lease at a nominal fee. Staff found one other City in the area, City of Azusa which does lease a site and according to the Administration there is no fee involved. Mrs. Angus said the Parks and Recreation Committee, after receiving public input, recommended at their April 19 meeting that the Sanitation site should be designated as a Specific Plan District with underlying zoning of open space recreational. She recommended continuing the public hearing and taking public testimony, Then, close the public hearing, except for signs, and decide on issue of the Aerobic Studio and Sanitation site. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Pat Gough, Angels Home Center on Western asked for a continuance on the zoning change. He explained they were in the process of remodeling and was unclear as to what the zoning change would entail. He said he was unaware of the annexation into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. Brown advised Mr. Gough to contact the Environmental Services Department for further clarification on zoning. Nels Ostrem, 445 W. 7th Street, Suite F, San Pedro 90731, developer/owner of land from Sizzler to Security Pacific Bank requested a continuance until May 22. He also aired concerns about setback requirements relative to nonconforming uses. Lee Trudell, 26 Oceanaire Drive, RPV, requested change of zone to Commercial Recreation for the Sanitation District Site. He cited four reasons against a park site: 1) lack of City funds, 2) maintenance costs, 3) vandalism, 4) police problems. He thought the fences would have to be removed it if were designated open space. He suggested the adjacent residents and businesses be surveyed. Mr. Trudell was proposing a golf driving range with an area for Seniors. Minutes 5/8/84 Page Five Mr. Burley Ray Johnson , 28115 Montereina Drive, RPV, former member of the Eastview Goals Committee and member of Board of Homeowners Association spoke on his own behalf for agricultural zoning. He felt agricultural zoning would provide the best possible solution because it could provide ag—reenbelt. although different from parkland, and generaterevenuefo—rtffe—City. He suggested a Christmas tree lot which he was interested --in applying -}for. Mr. McNulty asked about signage and sales. Mr. Johnson said signs would be modest and sales only at Christmas time. Barbara Kennard, 3402 Deluna, RPV, aired concerns about the 20' versus the 25' front setback and the problem of rebuilding if destroyed by fire. She also requested a continuance until May 22. Jay Hodge, 28602 Friarstone, Rancho Palos Verdes; was opposed to,a_qolf drivinq range and felt a residential mix would be impractical on the Sanitation_ bi-s-t-r-ict site. He was in favor of a passive greenbelt; if there is no money to develop — it-now-,-i-t-c-o-ul-d-be-hel-d-until there is. He also stated that the Eastview Goals Commitee was well publicized and there was opportunity for input by the ,—merohant-s, -mr-s. ()r-tolano--asked-how-the setback requirements were established. Discussion ensued on this and continuance. Staff was requested to respond to the statement that fences would have to be removed around open space. Dr. Brown aired his opposition to the continuance stating that the City has attempted to present a series of zoning designations that would put this annexed area into consistency with the rest of the City which would allow some deviation. A motion was made by Mrs. Ortolano to continue the entire Eastview General Plan Amendment to May 22 and seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yeses: McNulty, Ortolano, Wike, Von Hagen Noes: Brown RECESS RECONVENED 10:15 P.M. 10:30 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 24 - The staff report was presented by AMENDEMENT (TRACT NO. 33034) Associate Planner Steve Rubin. Steinbach - 30646 Calle de Suenos He stated the reason for the application was to amend Conditional Use Permit 24, condition 3, allowing construction of a house to exceed the established 564 foot maximum ridgeline. He gave a history of events. Tract No. 33034 and Conditional Use Permit No. 24 were approved by the Planning Commission in July, 1977. The map was finaled in September 1979 and recorded in October 1979. R ^ Minutes 5/8/84 Page Six He Said the issue relates to view. The original analysis that was done concluded that the three lots had potential to impact views of properties OD Camino PVrVeDir. At the same time, however, the other surrounding lots had no reasonable expectation of view due to the topographic conditions. Views from Lots 33 through 35 on Camino PorV8Oir were c0nSid6r8d the most critical. 30540 and 30530 Camino PorVenir were considered to have the best vl8N potential thus it was subsequently established that lots l through 3 of this tract have the 564 foot 0aXi0U0 ridg8line. Mr. Rubin said sometime during construction of the street, the plan was revised raising the elevations by three to four feet and approved by the County. einbachs nor the Ctt« were aware of this at that time; only after the current problem arose. He felt all parties had acted in good faith. / ' Mr. Rubin said that although much money has been spent by all parties, there is no provision in the Development Code to deal with monetary factors. He said the applicant's request would allow them to complete construction Of their house per their approved plans' Staff has conducted J View analysis to determine potential view impacts. Photos discussed and Vi04 analysis interpreted. It was determined that the COlich's house /Lot 3 has DO View across Lot 2 from the primary living areas. It is staff's opinion that Lots l, 2, and 3 do not have a "reasonable expectation of View'/ over the lots across the street from then nor were there significant impacts to the primary views from 30540 and 30530 Ca0lDO PorVeOir. Staff, therefore, concluded that the proposed house would not have significant impact. Thus, staff recommended adoption of Resolution P.C. 84- , amending condition no. 3, Exhibit A, Resolution P.C. No. 77-4; establishing a 568 foot maximum ridgeline for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Tract No. 33034. Dr. Brown cautioned the C000|sslUD to keep in mind the definition of r2d3Onahl8 expectation of view; that it was an important point to remember. Discussion ensued relative to sea level measurement, the elevation survey OF February, and the fact that if this issue were treated as d Height Variation, using that criteria, there would be no question that it would comply and be accepted and approved. Kenneth Bley° attorney, 2049 Century Park East, 28th floor, Los Angeles, representing the 3teinbaohs said his clients purchased the lot in 1983 and he continued wfth a history of events. He said they acted in good faith when they hired their surveyor. The surveyor Obtained incorrect information from the sewer plans at the County Office in Lomita that resulted in this error' Mr 8ley said his clients immediately stopped work When they were aware there was d prVbl8m. He said the SteinbaCh3 have spent from 70 to 100,000 thousand dollars already. Since the impact is 8O ihfnimal, he requested the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr' Bl8y asked for d chance to respond following the opposition. Discussion ensued relative to the method by Which the ridgelfDe height was measured resulting in the problem. Mr, Earl Rubenstein, architect, lllll Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles 90064" representing the StefDbaChs^ stated that both methods of surveying are 10 �r Minutes 5/8/84 Page Seven acceptable and concurred with everything Mr, 07ey stated. All the following people concurred with Mr. Bley: Mr' Steinbach, Mr' McKi5Sock, Mr, AOSh0o S. Gupta, Mr. Kiel, Mr. Rangwala, Mr. Crllly, Mr, HOU3toO° and were in favor of granting the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr' Gary A. KVVaoic, 601 W. 5th Street, Los Angeles, 90017, attorney, representing Mr, and Mrs. COliCh dealt with view obstruction as the key iS3Ue' He felt the 3teiDbac6s knew Of the problem in advance. He suggested adhering to the original restrictions and there was no reason to change. Mr. Kovacic felt it was not wise to rely on as -built plans for surveying. He said his clients used a licensed surveyor and built a pad in the rear yard as a viewing area, spending over $70,000 for retaining walls. His clients went to great expense to meet the restrictions. Richard Jones, 30540 Camino PopVenir submitted a letter against the proposed house. He felt all the Other homes had conformed. Bert Wevde, President of subject tract's homeowner's aSOciatiVn, owner Of Lot 4, presented a petition with- three naUe�s-GT—aihst--th-e-/dne-ndmeDt to the Conditional Use Permit, He felt it was unfair and that it will set a bad precedent. Mr' K. Bley, St8lnbaoh'3 attorney, stated that this will not set a precedent because there are only three lots subject to the 554 limit and 2 are already built. He also stated that the LA County Code requires the as -built sewer plans correctly reflect the grade. He felt cost was not irrelevant and asked that the issue of minimal impact versus cost be considered. Commission discussion included the facts and determinations of the application, lDClUdfDg that the maximum ridgeline was estahllSh8d.tO protect the Cd0lDO PVrVenir properties, that on those properties, in fact, there was little or no impact, and that the Collich property does not have a view by Code. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84 - amending Condition No. 3 Exhibit A, Resolution P.C. NO. 77-4; establishing a 568 foot maximum ridgeliOe for Lots 1, 2, 3 Tract 33034. Seconded by Mrs. Wike. The motion was amended to read Lot 2 Only; amended motion seconded by Mrs. Wik2. ROLL CALL: Yeses: OytolanV, McNulty, Wik2° Von Hagen Absent: Brown Mr' McNulty advised that this is appealable to City Council within 15 days. Minutes of April 24, 1984 It was moved and passed that the minutes of April 24, 1984 be held over until the May 22, 1984 Planning CODm/33iOD meeting. Minutes 5/8/84 Page Eight STAFF such a meeting is necessary. I 11GO&WIN Director Hightower asked if the Commission had items to discuss with Council May 29. It was decided to wait until May 22 to decide if Mr. McNulty moved to adjourn at 12:30 a.m. seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed. Ell