Loading...
PC MINS 19860311M I N U T E S Planning Commission Mardi;` 1-�' 1986 --- The meeting was called to order at 7:40 PM by Chairman Von Hagen at 29301 Hawthorne. PRESENT: ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: MC NULTY LATE: HODGE Also present were Associate Planner Steve Rubin and Assistant Planner Greg Fuz. COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR None Minutes of February 11, 1986 The Commission discussed those not present who_had _katt ended thhe-February 11, 1986 meeting approving the minutes and it was agreed to move the approval of the minutes to the end of the agenda. -- „Staff-noted that Resolutions P. -C. No. -86=9 and 86-10 were provided to the Commission for information and were not to be considered as a Calendar item. Conditional Use Permit No. 59 Assistant Planner Greg Fuz presented the P. V. Properties staff report on the Palos Verdes Properties Tract 37818 request to extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit No. 59 with the recommendation that the Commission extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit No. 59 to April 1, 1988. The Commission stated -its agreement with staff's recommendation. Mrs. Wike moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 59 extension for two years to April 1, 1988, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit No. 58 Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the Major Amendment(Vista Pacifica) staff report on this request to allow accessory Tumanjan & Tumanjan-Tract 39673 structures on Lots 1-52 with the recommendation that the Commission adopt Resolution P. C. No. 86-11 approving accessory structures on Lots 1-52 subject to the Conditions contained in -Exhibit -,A". Minutes March 11,_ 1986 - Page 2 Staff'discussed applicant's withdrawal of landscaping plans as a result of the January 1986 expiration of the time period to process multiple lot line adjustments, the importance of the relationship between lot lines and common open space and resolving lot lines before dealing with landscaping plans, setbacks required for accessory structures to be from whatever legal lot lines are at t time the appM"EtM ls's-Miitted, allowing partial shade patio covers no wider than existing structures with a required rear set back of at least 50% of the narrowest dimension measured to the property line, at -grade spas or those no greater than 30" in height being placed anywhere on Lots 10-38, spas on Lots 1-9 and 39-52 (those lots abutting streets which surround the tract with a 4 foot high perimeter wall) being required to be located such that fencing be a minimum of at .least 5 feet away from lot lines, and the Code permitting one master dish antenna as opposed to each individual owner having same. Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing. Since -there was no testimony to the issue, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed including the removal of the Olive tree in the approval package, foreclosing on the $500,000 bond to bring the current approved landscaping plan into Code compliance, problems with applicant never submitting new plans, setting a deadline for applicant to submit new plans, City Council's role with regard to bond foreclosure, including language in the approval package with regard to a revised landscaping plan being submitted or the Commission will recommend to City Council that the bond be foreclosed, no time limit on the $500,000 bond, agreement with staff's opinion that lot lines/open space must be resolved before dealing with landscaping plans, drought resistant plants/slope erosion, and Exhibit "A" No. Id with regard to interior/perimeter wall heights recommending a 5 foot height for sidewalls. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt Resolution P. C. No. 86-11 approving accessory structures on Lots 1-52 subject to the Conditions contained in Exhibit "A" with a change under Exhibit "A" No. ld to the effect that the maximum height be 5 feet instead of 6 feet, that concerns regarding applicant's apparent negligence in addressing the landscaping issue is apparent to the Commission, and that a letter be sent with a carbon copy to the Mayor indicating concern that this issue be addressed in a most timely manner. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Wike. The Commission discussed placing a specific time limit on applicant submitting landscaping plans. The motion was passed unanimously. Minutes March 11, 1986 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS 1109LORK Height Variation No. 423 Appeal Garay - 2070 Mac Arthur Wm. Harvey et al. - Appellant Associate Planner Greg Fuz presented the staff report on this appeal of staff's approval of Height Variation No. 423 with the recommendation that the Commission deny the appeal. Staff discussed the 16' envelope/appli cant's proposed 25' addition, the cumulative effect, viewing areas with regard to setbacks, existing/potential views, The Pl&nning Director's determination of a viewing area, analyzing views from inside/outside homes, the criteria for a Height Variation to strictly be view, parkway trees, the tile roof slope requirement of 3:12, applicant's proposed tile roof slope of 4:12, flat roof water leakage, staff's visits to the area, City notification procedures, application processing time, applicant's existing structure of 13', most of applicant's garage to be within the 20' setback, a Variance required for an addition on top of applicant's garage, the inability to apply the code more restrictively in one area than another, and pole placement., Mr. Reynaldo Garay, 2070 Mac Arthur Street, applicant gave his__ opinion that all the necessary regulations have been complied with, his concern over the new argument of cumulative effect, his willingness to work with staff/architect in an attempt to resolve problems, the proposed second story dixmnsions of 25' X 32', staff's pole placement, problems involved with lowering floors/76" ceilings, and intentions to cut down the Olive tree in his backyard. Residents opposing Height Variation No. 423 were Ms. Margo Whitney Bramlett Ms. Mitzi Cress Mr. Hobart Cress Mr. William F. Harvey (Appellant) Mr. John Kobrys Mr. Bill Lee Ms. Cleora Wellinger 2133 Mac Arthur Street 2125 Mac Arthur Street If if if 2084 Mac Arthur Street 2113 Noble View Drive 2092 Mac Arthur Street 2138 Mac Arthur Street Minutes March 11, 1986 Page 4 Residents opposing Height Variation No. 423 discussed the inadequacies of City notification procedures, the 90732 zip code, view lot premiums, the inaccuracies and inadequacies of the information by which the City granted Height Variation No. 423, staff's inadequate photo equipment, inadequate view assessment procedures, the Code's interpretation of view impairment, tree view blockage, primary living areas, the five month time period between application submission and final approval, City financial problems affecting approvals, the homeowners' petition against the addition, appellant's photos, maintenance of the road in the tract, 16' additions/applicant's proposed 25' addition, applicant lowering the floors/7'6" ceilings, applicant's proposed peaked roof/ flat roofs, applicant's backyard Olive tree, inadequate Code information received from the City, and staff's inaccurate pole placement. The Commission discussed the cumulative effect, the 25' proposed height to include a 19' second story t 6' roofing, flatt�m _the roof in an effort to reduce the proposed height, requiring 3:1-2- roof slope and the height decrease as a result thereof, staff's photo equipment, views with regard to primary living areas, the Code definition of a view lot as it applies to the tract, the Director of Planning determining a:_ -vi. —ewi ng area, appellant's document displaying a fundamental lack of Code understanding, staff's pole placement, the 90732 zip code, application processing time, resident attendance at meetings to be helpful, appeallant's accusations of collusion and incompetence, the proposed addition to have no signifi- cant view impact within the 16' envelope, P. V. News printing public notices (available near Thrifty in East View �,City notification procedures, analyzing views from inside/outside homes, the Homeowners' Association solving the tree view blockage problem, the Todd Shipyard view from 2138 Mac Arthur (Wellinger) to be within the 16' envelope, the view impairment to 2084 Mac Arthur (Harvey), the City's financial problems as not being Ke1_,e_vantto ap — plicati - on approvals, _the C6Ae information sent appellant to be based on staff's interpretation of the request, view lot premiums, the , i riabi 11 ty to apply _more restrictions in an area than the Code requires, tWolding the appeal to deny the Variation, approving the application with a reduced roof, the possibility of applicant building on to his backyard, continuing the application with direction to applicant to work with his architect/ engineer to —i -e --duce, the proposed 25' height, giving specific height reduction instructions to applicant, and applicant's lot currently being 7Cf/. open space/the City' s� 50% minimum open space requirement. Nks. Ortolano moved to continue the application to give applicant moretime to explore with his architect/engineer -�Eo—see whatcanbe done to to further reduce potential view impact, but that the heLqb_t_o_f_the second storystructureshould not go below 191 or 20'. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. Staff stated notices of future Height Variation No. 423 hearings will be sent to petition si gnators. Minutes March 11, 1986 Page 5 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None (Regarding Non -Agenda Item) .Me._l STAFF None C01+1ISSION The Co mission discussed the March 6, 1986 Specific Plan No. 3 Workshop. The Car fission discussed Acting Planning Director Ann Negendank negotiating the purchase of the existing GSA building on the -Raei-f­ - 'D1 --- site. P" r -P -i,7wi Ct' AaJOURNMERr Mrs. Wike moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM to March 25, 1986. seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously.