Loading...
PC MINS 19850709t e5 ol MINU-TES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 1985 The meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M. by Chairman McNulty at Hesse Park Community Building, 2939,1 Hawthorne Boulevard. A brief recess was called at 6:45 P.M. to set-up the tape recorder; the meeting was reconvened at 6:55 P.M. by Chairman McNulty. PRESENT: McNULTY, HODGE, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: NONE Also present were Deputy City Attorney Steve Broiles, Senior Planner Ann Negendank, Associaie Planners Alice Angus and Steve Rubin and Assistant Planner Greg Fuz. COMMUNICATIONS u -A letter from Dr. Stephens regarding the denial of her sign application, along with a copy of staff's response were discuE�sed. CONTINUED BUSINESS Certificate of Compliance No. 90 Kerwin 30520 Palos Verdes Drive East that Commissioner Hodge could not participate in been present during earlier hearings. The staff report was presented by Associate Planner Alice Angus, which summarized the May 14, 1985 staff report and presented both staff and the City Attorney res- ponse to request for information. It was noted by Chairman McNulty this matter because he had not Robert Kerwin, 30438 Palos Verdes Drive East, summarized his understanding of what occurred at the May 14, 1985 meeting, and his efforts to provide the information requested by the Commission at that time. A Commissioner questioned Mr. Kerwin as to whether or not he accepted the fact that neither Assessor tax bills, maps, nor loans from lending institutions on a portion of a piece of property. create a lot. Mr. Kerwin stated that he would refer to his attorney on such matters. He also went on to provide statements from other professionals as to their acceptance of such documents as indication of a legal lot. At the Commission's request, Deputy City Attorney Steve Broiles clarified a por- tion of the letter written by City Attorney Steve Dorsey regarding recordation of trust -.deeds by the Saltus' for loan purposes. He stated that despite recordation, no transfer of title occurred, therefore no change in ownership and no "creation" of 2 parcels had resulted. fi Minutes July 9, 1985 Page 2 Ms. Kathryn Dunaway, 3701 Skypark Drive, #170, Torrance, attorney for the Kerwin's, noted a difference in opinion on this point in that she believed the lending institutions took possession when they loaned on the recorded trust deeds. Mr. Kerwin noted that such was admitted in Mr. Dorsey's let- ter, although it was recognized as possession in a very narrow sense. Commissioners in opposition to approving Certificate of Compliance No. 90 were in agreement with the City Attorney's letter, and also noted that the previous owners, the Saltus', violated local county subdivision require- ments by not meeting all conditions of approval on an earlier application. Chairman McNulty made the following statement:.- -Or" jhe.hjstory�, of the two parcels, as presented to date, clearly shows the intent to create twoparcels,through-the recordation of grant deeds for loan purposes. He challenged anyone to show him a lending institution which would grant a loan on a parcel which it did not consider a legal parcel. Certainly mistakes had been made in the methods used to create the two parcels, in that it violated State Statutes - but the intent was very clear to him. Ms. Dunaway stated that the point of the Government Code was to "grand- father" lots that weren't legally created, but had been created,by other means. This was the same situation as with the Kerwins' property. Mr. Broiles explainedthat Elfis —was true of —,parceY§­wfiT_CR_v_i_0Eated —Only State Statutes, but that in his opinion, local county requirements had been violated, and that the State Statutes were not intended to apply in such a situation. Discussion ensued regarding the results of a split vote. Ms. Angus noted that in the event of a split vote, the issue would automatically be taken to the City Council. At the request of one Commissioner, with unanimous agreement, a short recess was taken at 7:25 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Von Hagen moved that the Planning Commission find that the subject parcel was created legally (parcel adjacent to and west of 30438 Palos Verdes Drive East). Mr. McNulty seconded the motion. The motion failed on a 2-2 roll call vote: AYES: Von Hagen, McNulty NOES: Ortolan , Wike Mrs. Ortolano moved to deny Certificate of Compliance No. 90. Seconded by Mrs. Wike. Minutes July 9, 1985 Page 3 The motion failed on a 2-2 roll call vote: AYES: Ortolan , Wike NOES: Von Hagen, McNulty Chairman McNulty informed the applicants that their application had been denied by default and further informed them of their appeal rights. Mrs. Ortolano moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 85-14, denying Variance No. 111 and Grading No. 759 on the basis of an illegal lot. CONTINUED BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 20 VARIANCE 122 KEARNS 6317 Via Colinita Chairman McNulty opened the public hearing. By consensus, the Commission moved Code Amendment No. 20 to the end of the Agenda. A brief staff report was presented by Associate Planner Steve Rubin summar- izing events -of the previous meeting, direction given to the applicant and the applicant's responses. Frederick Kearns, 18406 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 206, Torrance, requested two changes in the conditions of approval; specifically to change the roof pitch to improve aesthetics and also to have either automatic garage doors or roll -up doors, but not both. Mr. Rubin noted that the roof pitch change would increase building height by 4" from dine measurement location and 1'4" at another. Mr. Von Hagen moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Chairman McNulty. The motion passed unanimously. After brief discussion among the Commission6rs_,Mrs. Ortolan moved to -approve in concept with a 4 in 12 foot pitch, with all other conditions to remain as pro- posed, seconded by Chairman McNulty. The motion was passed unanimously. Staff was directed to bring back a revised resolution at the next meeting. Chairman McNulty informed the applicant of his appeal rights. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92 A brief staff report was given SALVATION ARMY by Assistant Planner Greg Fuz, 30840 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD highlighting the previous meet- ings results and the new con-_ dition requiring public improvements along Palos Verdes Drive South. Minutes July 9, 1985 Page 4 One Commissioner was still concerned with parking, and asked that parking controls be looked into further for future projects and code amendments. The Commission expressed some concern regarding the late introduction of Condition No. 8 requiring the road improvements. The Commission felt it was an appropriate condition, but should have been included from the beginning. Staff indicated that Public Works requirements would be included from the beginning on all future projects. The public hearing was opened by Chairman McNulty. Lt. Colonel Hood, Salvation Army, 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard, stated that he did not object to Condition No. 8, but would like to provide a letter to the City guaranteeing posting of the appropriate bonds in the future. The public hearing was closed. After brief discussion between the Commission and staff, it was determined that reconstruction of Palos Verdes Drive South would be commencing within two (2) years; therefore, time limits were not appropriate nor was a letter guaranteeing the posting of the appropriate securities. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 85-15 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 92 -Amendment, seconded by Mrs. Ortolano. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman McNulty informed the applicants of their appeal rights. INFORMAL HEARINGS Assistant Planner Greg Fuz GRADING NO. 798 -APPEAL presented a brief staff re- DEWEY port delineating the changes 37.20 VIGILENCE made by the applicant per direction from the Commission. Gene Dewey, 3270 Vigilence Drive was available to answer questions. There were no questions. Discussion among the Commisioners ensued. Comments opposing the application related to the number of footings and any presence of solar panels on slopes. Comments in favor related to the Deweys' efforts to comply with direction given by the Commission at the previous meeting. Mrs. Wike moved to approve Grading No. 789 -Appeal with the condition that the panels be moved one foot up the slope. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Von Hagen moved to deny Grading No. 789 -Appeal. The motion passed on a 4-1 roll call vote as follows: Minutes .Tuly, 92 1985 Page 5 AYES: HODGE, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, McNULTY NOES: WIKE Chairman McNulty informed the applicants of their appeal rights. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE NO. 119 Assistant Planner Greg Fuz GRAESNER gave a brief staff report 2139 GjgM1 iAlriM1,149 17K describing the subject variance. Questions of staff related to when the spa had been built, and escrow money to handle changes mandated by the Commission actions that evening. Chairman McNulty opened the public hearing. As there was no one present to speak to this item, Chairman McNulty moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mrs. Ortolano, and passed unanimously. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 85-15, denying Variance No. 119, with.the recommendation that the applicant apply for a Minor Exception Permit and relocate the equipment with the proper permits and inspections. Seconded by Chairman McNulty. The motion was approved on a roll call vote 5-0. VARIANCE NO. 121 Chairman McNulty withdrew and SCHAEFER abstained from voting on this 30523 CARTIER DRIVE matter due to personal friend- ship with the Schaefers, and turned the.meeting over to Vice -Chairman Von Hagen. Mrs. Wike stated that she also knew the applicant through other community or- ganizations, but was not a personal friend. Assistant Planner Greg Fuz gave a brief staff report describing Variance No. 121. Questions of staff related to the "second unit" status of the subject garage due to a full kitchen facility. Vice -Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing. Joane Schaefer, 30523 Cartier Drive, stated that it was her home, the converted garage does not hurt anyone, is not detrimental to the neighborhood, is a guest house, but is not used as a second unit, is not a threat or nuisance and it great- ly enhances the value of her home. Commission questions related to cars parked in the driveway and also to the il- legality of the use. Minutes July 9, 1985 Page 6 Mrs. Susan Hough, 6629 Lautrec Place, spoke on behalf of Mrs. Schaefer. She did not think the converted garage was detrimental in any way. As there were no further questions or speakers from the audience, Mrs. Ortolano moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. Commission discussion related to the City's need to take the long term view, as this was a serious violation, and indicated strong support of staff's re- commendation. Mr/. Hodge moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 85-16, denying Variance No. 121. Seconded by Vice -Chairman Von Hagen. The motion passed on roll call vote 4-0. Vice -Chairman Von Hagen informed the applicant of her appeal rights. The Chair was returned to Chairman McNulty. PUBLIC HEARINGS Associate Planner Alice Angus CODE AMENDMENT NO. 20 gave the staff report, noting the most recent revisions. A summary of changes to the Open Space -Hazard lan- guage, Section 17.30.040 and .050 was distributed. Chairman McNulty opened the public hearing, as there was no one in the audience to speak to the item, the public hearing was then -closed. The following items were discussed by the Commission and staff: Pg. 7, No. 24: Clarification of language relating to "principal identifiable view." No changes were made. Pg. 10, No. 34.8: Clairification of language relating to fence/wall heights within front and street side setbacks. No changes were made. Pg. 13, No.'s 46 and 47: Much clarification was requested relating to these two items. -It was ultimately decided to remove all changes to commercial sign language,from this code amendment and deal with these issues in a future amendment, Pg. 11, No. 35: Clarification was requested relating to the proposed compact parking standards. No changes were made. Discussion regarding noticing of Height Variations ensued, focusing on the length of the initial noticing period and who recieves final noticing. The majority of the Commission believed the existing procedures were adequate and no changes were made. It was moved and seconded to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 85-17, as amended, re-� commending approval of Code Amendment No. 20 to the City Council. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-0. 1 Minutes July 9, 1985 Page 7 Mrs. Wike noted for the record that while she had voted in favor of adopting Resolution P.C. No. 85-17, she did not agree with the existing noticing pro- cedures regarding Height Variations. Mr. Hodge abstained from voting as he had not participated in the earlier public hearings. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS There were no questions from the audience. REPORTS Medical sign. Staff gave a brief update on efforts to remove the Bayshore There being no reports from the Commission, the meeting was adjourned to 6:30 P.M. on July 11, 1985 at 10:15 P.M.