Loading...
PC MINS 19860513 MINUTESAPPD\feA ofriet-tet& PLANNING COMMISSION May 13 , 1986 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 PM 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 Alice Bergquist Angus , and Assistant Planner Jack Roberts . COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen related the following communications : ( 1 ) May 4 , 1986 letter from ( 2 ) Brochure regarding the May 30 , 1986 Southwest Area Planning Council meeting ( 3 ) Director of Public Works memo regarding Tentative Parcel Map No. 17161 . CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution P.C. No. 86- By consensus Resolution P.C. No. Swanson 86- was moved to the end of the 29002 Bayend Drive agenda. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Tentative Parcel Map No. 17161 Associate Planner Alice Bergquist Revision - Transamerica Corp. Angus presented the staff report on Portuguese Bend Club Transamerica ' s request to allow a revision to the common boundary of Lots 2 and 3 with the recommendation that the Commission adopt Resolution P.C. No. 86-13 approving the proposed boundary change and deleting Condition No. 16 regarding a 20 foot right-of-way dedication on Lots 2 and 3 . Staff reviewed applicant ' s request to remove the five lot tract, Tract No. 22635 , from Lot 3 and attach it to the area designated as "not a part" of Lot 2 . Staff stated this would require a change in the boundary between Lots 2 and 3 . The Commission stated the tract is made up of vacant lots and is recorded and approved. !II 411 Minutes May 13 , 1986 Page 2 Staff stated the concern along Palos Verdes Drive South is that there be adequate room to widen the road an additional 4 feet. Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing. Mr. Donald E. Ury, 1150 S. Olive Street, Los Angeles , 90015 , representing Transamerica Development Corporation, discussed his willingness to answer questions and stated Transamerica ' s agreement with the amendment as proposed by staff . Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Hodge and passed unanimously. The Commission stated a 100 foot easement is especially necessary because Palos Verdes Drive South is a major thoroughfare and stressed exceptions to the 100 foot easement should be made as projects are developed. Staff stated the impact of leaving 100 feet in terms of planning is not great, but, on Lot 3 in future terms of development, there may be an impact. Staff said the procedure at the time of a future project would be to hold a public hearing. The Commission discussed its agreement with staff ' s recommendation to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 86- and noted that the original Resolution as proposed includes Exhibit "A" which would require applicant to dedicate a 20 foot strip of land to the City for Palos Verdes Drive South road improvements . Staff emphasized Exhibit "A" should be deleted. Mrs . Ortolano moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 86-13 with the deletion of Exhibit "A" as proposed. Mr. Hodge seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Applicant was advised of appeal rights . INFORMAL HEARINGS Sign Permit No. 291 Assistant Planner Jack Roberts presented All Pets Vet Hospital the staff reporton p All Pets request to 29131 Western Avenue retain non-conforming signs with the recommendation that the Committee uphold the Code and allow one major identification sign. Staff discussed applicant ' s request to ( 1 ) retain an illuminated 27 square foot cannister sign and ( 2 ) retain the sign panel on the pole sign in a small strip of land that extends into the City of Los Angeles . Staff noted this property is being processed for annexation to the City and, if annexed, the pol sign would be subject to amortization. 111 Minutes May 13 , 1986 Page 3 Staff discussed proposed alternatives and stated preference of applicant removing the pole panel sign and keeping the cannister sign. Staff discussed the Planning Commission should consider the issues of equal signage and Code compliance. The Commission discussed applicant removing the pole panel sign and the associated problem of a blank sign. The Commission stressed the City has no jurisdiction in the City of Los Angeles , the possibility of the land on which the pole panel sign sits being annexed into the City, and the probability that the landowners will protest the annexation. Staff stated applicant' s cloth banner should be removed and discussed that the method of getting sign control should be to focus on the City allowing only one major identification sign. Staff further discussed the cannister sign was put up within the last year ( since the amortization program was implemented on Western Avenue) . The Commission discussed the shopping center ' s owner knowing there is a split piece of property . The Commission emphasized that the purpose of the amortization is to enable merchants to have 5 years to recoup their sign investments . Staff stated the pole panel sign is not amortized, the amortiza- tion begins once noticing has occurred, and the shopping center has not been noticed because the amortization program for the block is being held in abeyance until the annexation process is settled. The Commission discussed problems with and surprise over the amortization having not begun. Mr. Robert W. Moore, 29131 Western Avenue, applicant, stated in September 1985 he was told by the center' s management the signs were being amortized and within the next 3 - 4 years the pole panel signs would have to be brought into conformance (a matter of changing face plates only) . He voiced concern over the City not informing him of any related problems when he applied for a business license and losing business if the signs are removed. He stated that he is in favor of sign conformance and he discussed he is the only City vet who has night emergency service and the signs help identify his office. Mr . Moore also said he did not feel the time he had was enough to respond to the staff report. !II 111 Minutes May 13 , 1986 Page 4 The Commission discussed applicant paid $1 , 000 for the pole panel sign, problems with the center ' s management misinforming tenants , the pole panel sign in the City of Los Angeles and the City having no control over it, the City Attorney' s opinion that the Sign Ordinance as written can be used as a tool in requiring conformance, and that the meeting agendas and related information are not distri- buted until the Friday before the meeting. Mr. Nels M. Ostrem, 445 W. 7th Street, Ste F, San Pedro, 90731 , owner of the property adjacent to applicant ' s , stated he is trying to protect the rights of the old and new tenants . Mr. Charles Berman, 29111 So. Western Avenue, one of the owners of the Western Plaza Shopping Center, stated it was his understanding that the old signs were already under amortization and he thought that changing thelettering on the cannister sign did not require a permit. Mr. Berman voiced concern over the possibility of an existing pole panel sign being empty and stated his agreement with the City' s sign ordinances . The Commission discussed the associated problems of different City ordinances on property in two cities and that the owner may have made an attempt to avoid complying with the City Sign Code. The Commission reviewed the possibility of requiring the owner to remove the pole panel sign, applicant keeping the cannister sign, and said the owner should have called the City to inquire about its sign policy. The Commission discussed two methods for achieving sign control in the related area: ( 1 ) notice and begin an amortization period (which would apply to all in the area) so that the applicant' s of Sign Permit Nos . 291 and 296 would receive the same treatment as others in the area, or ( 2 ) get control as each new tenant moves in. The Commission emphasized the owner is surely now aware that the amortization does not go with the property but with the tenants. Staff stressed permits are required to change the face of a sign on a building and noted the building frontage is in the City of Los Angeles . The Commission further discussed abiding with the City Attorney' s opinion and stated the owner ' s intent was to get around the City' s Code. Mr. McNulty moved to approve applicant' s sign permit to the extent that it shall be a legal conforming sign on the face of the building. Mr. Hodge seconded and the motion was passed by majority with Mrs . Wike dissenting. Applicant was advised of appeal rights . 411 111 Minutes May 13 , 1986 Page 5 Sign Permit No. 296 Assistant Planner Jack Roberts presented Chippenails the staff report on Chippenails request 29129 Western to retain non-conforming signs with the recommendation that the Commission up- hold the Code and allow one major identification sign. Staff stated applicant' s request is to retain a 27 foot cannister sign and there is only 21 feet of frontage and to retain a pole panel sign on land in the City of Los Angeles (which is currently being processed for annexation into the City) . Staff also stated if annexed the pole panel sign would be subject to amortization. The Commission discussed applicant ' s sign seems smaller than the All Pets sign and measuring signs should be a standard staff procedure. Mr. Glen Smith, 29129 Western Avenue, applicant, discussed he was misinformed about the City' s Sign Ordinance by the center ' s owner and was told the sign would be amortized in 5 years . He stated the sign is uniform with all others in the center, willingness to comply with the City' s Sign Ordinance upon annexation, and noted the removal of the sign would result in a loss of business and be a financial hardship. The Commission discussed approving the sign as it is (non-conforming) with applicant being obligated to bring the sign into conformance when the lease expires or within 5 years , whichever is shorter. The Commission discussed problems with the owner misinforming the appli- cant and stated the sign is within 90% of conformance and is no great injury to the City as it is . Mr. McNulty moved that applicant' s request for approval to retain the sign on the front of the building be approved as it is presently sized with the condition that the sign shall immediately come into compliance at the termination of the lease or at the end of 5 years ' time from approval , whichever is shorter. The Commission further discussed the property owner being duly noticed that no further new businesses should be in any way told that their signs can remain for 5 years . The Commission also reviewed requiring applicant instead of the owner to bring the sign into conformance when he vacates the property. The motion passed by majority with Mrs . Wike dissenting. Applicant was advised of appeal rights . 410 111 Minutes May 13 , 1986 Page 6 Grading No. 890 Assistant Planner Jack Roberts presented Mardosian 30162 Cartier the staff report on this request q st to Lot 138 allow grading on a legally withg y created lot an existing total average slope of 44% in order to develop a new single family residence with the recom- mendation that the Commission approve the application with therequire- ment require- ment that the retaining walls be revised as staff suggested. Staff discussed issues for consideration, stated the height, agree with the Code forcreated open space and setbacks �� lots legally before 1975 , the 3 6 retaining wall running alongthe front line should be deleted from the property plan because it is not needed, and the proposed plan should be -tevi sed since there is not 3 ' clearance between retaining walls. Mr. Jacob Dakessian, 2408 Venus Drive, Los Angeles , 90046 , architect, discussed staff has been most cooperative, his agreement with th staff s report, and applicant ' s willingness to revise the clearance between retaining walls to make 3 ' distance between them. Staff said plantings would be a much better system for slope stabilization than retainingwalls . p The Commission discussed the possibility of applicant working with staff on landscaping/walls/stairways . The Commission notedP roblems with applicant ' s request of a 3 ' 6" retaining wall and noted a similar wall could be applied for at a later date. The Commission stated there are no known geological stability problems in the area of applicant ' s property. The Commission discussed conditioning applicant to shield exposed walls with landscaping. Mr. McNulty moved to approve staff ' s Recommendation No. 1 approving pp g the application with the requirement that retaining walls be revised as noted in the staff report and that applicant be required to submit a landscaping proposal to cover- exposed large expanses of walls . The Commission also discussed retaining walls be revised to include one 3 ' 6" wall running along the front property be removed and there be 3 ' distance between retaining walls . Mr. Von Hagen seconded and the motionassed unanimously. y. Applicant was advised of appeal rights . 411 111 Minutes May 13 , 1986 Page 7 CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution P.C. No. 86- The Commission discussed Swanson the wording of Resolution P.C. 29002 Bayend No. 86- and modified it as follows : Condition No. 1 was modified to read, "This approval expires twelve ( 12 ) months from the date of approval of this Parcel Map by the Planning Commission. . . " . Condition No. 17 was modified to read, " . . .for access rights or easements until. . . " . Condi ti on No. 22 was modified to read, " . . .there will be no visual impact through approval of a height variation, . . . " Condition No. 29 was modified to read, "All utilities serving the site shall be underground and connected at the expense of the devel- oper. . . " . Mr. McNulty moved to approve Resolution P.c . No. 86-14 as amended. Mr. Von Hagen seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. REPORTS STAFF Staff mentioned the June 16 Planning Commission/staff dinner . Staff also distributed standard conditions of approval . 411 111 Minutes May 13 , 1986 Page 8 COMMISSION Chairman Von Hagen announced that, with a great deal of regret, Alice Bergquist is leaving the City to go work for the City of Costa Mesa. He emphasized she has done her job with a great deal of professionalism and dignity and she will be irreplaceable. The Commission wished Alice all the best. The Commission reviewed the idea of a certified letter being mailed to parcel owners on Vstern Avenue to clarify the City' s Sign Code . It was also mentioned that staff might call the Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to alleviate any misconceptions . Other cities having sign ordinances which go hand in hand with business permits was also discussed. The Commission discussed the May 4 , 1986 letter from regarding the appeal of a spa and suggested staff give them the courtesy of a response stating if an appeal is filed they will be added to the notification list for Commission public hearings regarding same and the Variance applica-tion cannot be refiled at this time because of a provision in the Code which sets a time limit (and the time limit went with the application) . Staff noted it will provide the Commission with copies of the response. The Commission discussed the sign amortization time table. Staff noted it will notify the Commission of the amortization status. Staff notified the Commission that at the May 27, 1986 meeting there will be a public hearing for the Wallace Ranch property, and affordable housing for the Golden Cove 49 unit development will be discussed. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion from Mr. McNulty, seconded by Mrs . Wike, the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 30 PM.