Loading...
PC MINS 19860422 qlIl 111 (-II& *V70(7 I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Von Hagen at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: HODGE, MC NULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: NONE Also present were Acting Director of Environmental Services Ann Negendank, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, and Assistant Planner Jack Roberts. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen noted an RPV Council of the Homeowners' memo regarding its April 22, 1986 meeting at which its position on exterior stairs in residential areas was discussed. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of March 25, 1986 Mr. McNulty moved to adopt the March 25, 1986 minutes, seconded by Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS Informal Hearings GR No. 854 -- Appeal Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented 1941 Upland -- Anderson the staff report on the appeal of staff denial of a side yard retaining wall greater than 3.5' noting applicant's request to remove the item from the agenda and for the item to be continued indefinitely. Staff stated its plans to request an update on the item in several months. By majority consent the Commission approved the continuance of the GR No. 854 appeal . NEW BUSINESS Public Hearings Variance No. 135 Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the 5408 Eau Claire staff report on the request to allow an illegal Paul spa, decking and deck cover to remain in required rear setback with the recommendation that the Commission adopt Resolution P.C. No. 86-12 denying Variance No. 135. April 22, 1986 Page 2 Staff discussed the lack of possible findings related to granting applicant's Variance request. Staff noted overhead power lines at the rear of the property and running directly over the structure. Staff stressed no utility easement was recorded at the time of the tract map and discussed Southern California Edison currently researching whether a utility easement was ever recorded noting intentions to look into Edison's enforcement procedures should there be a utility easement on the property. In addition, staff discussed the 15' required setback noting the gazebo as less than I' from the fence with the spa equipment under the decking structure, the spa size of 72' x 3' noting the basic portable design of the spa, and a gas line and electrical conduits/outlets having been installed by the sellers of the equipment. Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Paul, 5408 Eau Claire, applicant, discussed problems presented by the 15' required setback, neighbors not objecting to the structure, recently selling his home and the new owners purchasing the spa, decking, and deck cover, and problems related to removing the structure. Mr. Paul also discussed never being informed of a utility easement and that title reports related to his purchase and sale of the property never revealed a utility easement. Mr. Paul noted his opinion that power lines do not run directly over the structure, the structure was installed approximately 1-1, years ago, and voiced concern over other offensive structures within the City. Mr. Mc Nulty moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Hodge and passed unanimously. The Commission discussed the relationship of utility easements versus the existing powerlines, and the property owner's power with regard to removal of the lines should there be no recorded utility easement. The Commission reviewed problems with the structure being installed without the proper permits stressing the importance of upholding City rules and discussed problems with determining findings for the Variance. The Commission discussed the uniqueness of the lot, that the slope and surrounding vegetation prevent the project from impacting others living space. Mrs. Ortolano moved to grant the Variance request, subject to inspection. The motion died for lack of a second. P.C. Minutes April 22, 1986 Page 3 The Commission then discussed the portability of the spa, adjacent to commercial property, the pillars and bedrock used for the structure support, applicant not obtaining geology reports prior to the structure's installation, setback purposes to be for providing privacy and insuring open space within the City, the spa located in what should be open space, approving the Variance and related problems with other residents in the same zoning district expecting the same, the addition of the structure with regard to maximum lot coverage, and the possibility of relocating the spa. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt staff's recommendation to adopt Resolution P.C. NO. 86-12 denying Variance No. 135. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hodge and passed by majority with Mrs. Ortolano dissenting. Applicant was advised of appeal rights. Tentative Parcel Map 16748 Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the staff 29002 Bayend Drive report on the request for approval of a proposed Swanson three lot subdivision with the recommendation that the Commission conduct the public hearing, determine whether the map meets the Code intent as well as the letter of the Code, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution for the next consent calendar. Staff discussed the difference of applicant's current request as opposed to previous applications as the removal of the existing structure from Lot A with new houses being built on all three proposed lots and all other aspects of the previous application would remain the same. Staff discussed Council's previous denial which was based on: the existing residence's zero setback from the access easement, topography/slope, and increased runoff resulting in drainage impacts on the canyon below. Staff noted the removal of the existing structure would negate the 15' setback problem. Staff addressed the City's flag lot policy emphasizing no knowledge of any verbage or policy in the General Plan discouraging lflag —lots. Staff also noted approval between 12/81 and 7/82 of four flag lots within the City. Staff discussed drainage noting the property is presently subject to uncontrolled sheet overflow during heavy rains and that, with development of the site, would come surface drains and swales conducted toward the canyon in a controlled manner. Staff also discussed that development of the upper portion of Lots B and C would remove some of the potential debris material which was of focus in Council's Resolution No. 86-69 in which applicant's previous request was denied. Staff suggested a condition of approval be that no obstructions be placed in the 12' Flood Control easement. 'Flood Control accesswas_discussed with staff noting applicant's proposal to include a proposal for an easement which would provide a portion of the access to the canyon below. The Commission discussed the Flood Control access going down the side of the parcel noting such an easement would require approval from the property owner to the east. City Council Resolution No. 85-69 was discussed with regard to Section 6 in which the Land Use Element of the General Plan was stated to discourage flag lots and the Commission noted its inability to locate such a policy. P.C. Minutes April 22, 1986 Page 4 The Commission further discussed applicant would be improving the property with removal of the existing structure on Lot A and agreement with staff's recommendation of placing a condition of the approval that no obstruction be placed in the 12' Flood Control easement stressing the purpose of such a condition would be to insure that in the future, no structures would be placed in the easement. Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing. Mr. William Swanson, 4235 Rousseau, Palos Verdes Peninsula, applicant, discussed the close votes of the two past denials and drainage stressing the property has drained to the canyon for the past 40 years. Mr. Swanson noted information and maps he sent to Flood Control for easement purposes and stressed Flood Control's statement that the owner/developer of the property would improve the access for maintenance of the storm drain. Mr. Swanson also discussed water control designs would be done by an engineer and approved by the City Engineer with ultimate placement on the final approved map. Mr. Swanson addressed his intentions to remove the existing structure on Lot A, the topography of the property being within all Code requirements, flag lot considerations stressing the proposed lots are larger than most in the area, at least 100 flag lots in the City (at least 12 of which are in the general area of the application), and his project would not conflict with the General Plan since there does not seem to be any verbage stating flag lots are prohibited. Residents opposing applicant's request were: Robert Perez 1920 Jaybrook Drive Barbara Perez 1920 Jaybrook Drive Robert Downing 1914 Caddington Drive Joseph Reinisch 1896 Jaybrook Drive —Tony Sosa, 28909 Gunter Road Residents opposing applicant's request voiced concern over increased traffic as a result of the three proposed homes, traffic presenting danger to children playing in the cul-de-sac, and related parking problems in cul-de-sac area which is very small. Opposing residents also discussed property depreciation stressing view obstruction should the proposed dwelling go any higher than those homes currently in the area. The two past denials of applicant's request to subdivide the property, Mr. Downing's easement agreement with Flood Control being adversely affected by the City's flag lot policy, the existing slopes being unsuitable for the type and density of the proposed division, and the subdivision resulting in substantial environmental damage due to soil erosion/runoff were addressed by opposing residents. Opposing residents further addressed Stone and Associates report indicating possible ancient landslides in the area and flood control by way of dissipation adversely affecting properties. Applicant making the property very valuable with one large, beautiful house — instead of subdividing the property was noted as a strong preference. The weed__ _ fire hazard on applicant's property, previous problems with mud in the canyon, agreement with applicant's plans to remove the existing structure from the proposed Lot A, applicant's driveway acting as a conduit sending water to the properties below, the project aesthetics/concern over a condo type appearance, more than 800 square feet of Lot B being designated as OH Zones, -and a portion of the Lot C slope being greater than 35% were also discussed by)opp6sing residents. Opposing residents suggested the Commission and Council clarify the flag lot issue incorporating it into the Development code. I 111/ 111/ P. C. Minutes April 22, 1986 Page 5 Upon motion from Mr. Mc Nulty, seconded by Mr. Hodge, and passed unanimously, the public hearing was closed. The Commission additionally discussed that children should play in City parks instead of street, applicant's willingness to grant an easement to Flood Control as a benefit to the area, if approved studies would be done to insure good drainage, and the Commission's inability to find any Code reference to flag lots. Placing a condition on the approval that applicant provide for guest parking off the street due to the configuration of the cul-de-sac was suggested by the Commission. Finally, the Commission discussed property drainage being an Engineering Department responsibility and the City powers related to the drain design, building on the property not affecting the land's saturation, and Mr. Swanson's great responsibility related to tampering with the natural drainage flow on the property. Staff noted agreement with the Commission's suggestion of placing a condition on the approval that applicant provide for guest parking off the street due to the configuration of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Mc Nulty moved to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution with the Conditions set forth in the Negative Declaration, at a minimum, that Mitigating Measure No. 2 be incorporated with Mitigating Measure No. 5, language be added addressing no obstructions be created in any easement, and direct applicant to provide one off street parking space per lot. The motion was seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. The Commission stated the resolution will be approved at the May 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting at which time appeal rights of those opposing the application will begin and that an appeal fee would accompany any appeals. INFORMAL HEARINGS Sign Permit No. 288 Assistant Planner Jack Roberts presented 28845 Western Avenue the staff report on the request to keep Mednick illegal and non-conforming signs with the recommendation that if the applicant were to remain in Noble's building after June 1, 1986 the Commission direct him to remove all existing non-conforming signage except for the two pole signs which are due to amortize May 1, 1990 and the east facing "Noble's" sign. Staff discussed the pole signs along Western having a five year amortization period which began May, 1985, the painted wall signs on the north and east facing walls of the Noble's building having a 180 day amortization period which began May, 1985, and one 10 square foot cannister pedestrian oriented sign having a five year amorti- zati'on periodwhich began £lay, 1985. Staff noted its goals of getting the property into Code conformance after the five year amortization period expires, desires to satisfy the commercial property needs as well as the Code requirements, discussed applicant's good sign exposure from the street noting poor exposure once on the premises and applicant's probable moving plans for August, 1986. P.C. NhOUtgs April 22, 1986 Page 6 The Commission noted its agreement with staff's opinion that conformance should be accomplished in the Western Avenue area and that it would not be appropriate to put any burden OM the applicant if he is moving August, 1986. The CO00fSsioD suggested instead Of approving the application for a certain period Of time that the application be denied and a compliance date of August, I986 be imposed in Order to accommodate applicant's proposed moved. Mr' Ed MbcfDg discussed his willingness to comply with the Code and his expectation to vacate the premises by August, 1086. Mr. Maciag noted the purchase of his lease would not be with the intention Of the purchaser continuing his business. Mrs. OrtulaD0 moved to adopt staff's Alternative No. 4 to deny the application and require Code compliance as of August l, 1986' The motion was seconded by Mr. Hodge and passed unanimously. The Commission clarified that the pole and caDnister signs will remain under amortization with the current tenant only and the painted wall signs will remain & feet out of compliance with the current tenant Only. In addition, it was noted that, if applicant were to vacate the premises prior to August l, 1980, he would be required to remove the signs. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE None (Regarding Non -Agenda Items) CONTINUED AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP After discussion of the information provided by Staff, the Planning Commission agreed that the issue should be discussed with the City Council at the next joint City Council -Planning Commission work session. ADJOURNED to April 29, 1986 at 7:30 PM at Hesse Park Community Room.