|Back To Agenda||Print Page|
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING CASE NO. ZON2006-00328 (REVISION BB TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 163/VARIANCE), WHICH IS A REQUEST TO PERMIT AN "AFTER-THE-FACT" 70' TALL FLAG POLE LOCATED AT THE BACK TEE OF HOLE #1 OF THE TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF COURSE
Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
Continue the public hearing to the September 19, 2006 City Council meeting.
On June 19, 2006, City Staff became aware that the Applicant had constructed a 70' high flagpole at the project site. Based upon a review of the conditions of approval, Staff determined that the flagpole constituted an accessory structure subject to the restrictions imposed by Conditional Use Permit No. 163, Condition No. F-6. The Applicant constructed the flagpole without obtaining approval of a CUP amendment and a Variance as required by Condition No. F-6. Additionally, no Building Permit was obtained. Staff notified the Applicant that a CUP amendment, Variance and Building Permit were required for the flagpole. Subsequently, on June 22, 2006, the Applicant submitted "after-the-fact" applications for a CUP amendment and Variance to permit the existing flagpole. The project was deemed complete on July 5, 2006. On July 25, 2006, after hearing public testimony and discussing the merits of the proposed project, the Planning Commission denied the Applicant's request, "without prejudice".
On August 9, 2006, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Public notice of the appeal was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on July 8, 2006, and mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius of the project site and to an interested parties list.
After the public hearing notice was mailed and published, Staff was informed that at least one Councilmember and possibly two would not be able to attend the September 5, 2006 City Council meeting and therefore would not be able to participate in the subject hearing. Subsequently, the Mayor requested that this item be continued to a subsequent meeting. As there is no action deadline related to the subject appeal, Staff recommends that the Council continue the public hearing without discussion to the September 19, 2006 City Council meeting.
Joel Rojas, AICP