Loading...
PC MINS 19900724MINUTES �J g44,o PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 24, 1990 L The meeting was called to order at 7:34pm by Chairman M ulty at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT McNulty, Von Hagen, Hotchkiss (arrived 7:43pm), Brooks, Katherman ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, Associate Planner Laurie Jester, and Assistant Planners Mike Patterson, Lisa Davidson, Bonnie Olson, Terry Silverman and Fabio de Freitas. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman McNulty acknowledged receipt of the following communications: A letter from appellants Mike and Elizabeth Corcoran regarding Height Variation 661, as well as a packet of information and letters regarding the same issue; and a letter from Roger Metzler regarding the Green Hills CUP. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of June 26, 1990 B. Minutes of July 10, 1990 C. P.C. Resolution No. 90-37/Sign Permit No. 523 D. P.C. Resolution No. 90-38/General Plan Amendment 18 E. P.C. Resolution No. 90-39/Variance No. 261/Grading No. 1437 Commissioner Von Hagen moved, seconded by Commissioner Katherman, and carried, to approve the consent calendar. (Commissioner Brooks noted abstention from Item B since she had not been at that meeting; but voted approval on all the other items.) PLANNING COMMIS:& MEETING July 24, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Associate Planner Laurie NO. 155, ENVIRONMENTAL Jester presented the staff ASSESSMENT NO. 601, GRADING report regarding the NO. 1442, VARIANCE NO. 262 applicant's request to Green Hills Memorial Park approve a 100 -year master 27501 S. Western plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. Staff recommendation is to approve only the development plans for Phase I and the grading for the entire site. Robert Levonian, 436 W. Colorado Blvd, Glendale, applicant, read a prepared statement objecting to the proposed partial CUP and setback requirements, stating that such restrictions interfered with the land use mandated by state law, and that he was exploring legal remedies. In response to a query from Commissioner Katherman, Mr. Levonian also stated that he was willing to offer an 8' strip of land for screen planting and also that the maintenance of the park was guaranteed through an endowment care fund. Paul D. Brown, 1223 Crestwood Street, San Pedro, representing Green Hills, outlined several concerns he had with the conditions of approval, including construction hours, tree maintenance, landscaping requirements, barbed wire and the County flood control drain. Arlene Gleich, 2817 Anchovy Avenue, San Pedro, also representing the cemetery, explained to the Commission that the endowment care fund was regulated by state law, and that the funds could not be used on undeveloped land. Ms. Gleich also asked that the title report deadline be extended to 60 or 90 days, and that the specified facilities operation hours be extended to accommodate the needs of her clients. She also objected to the requirement that Green Hills had to present landscaping plans. Sharon Goggins, 1915 Redondela Drive, expressed her support for the staff's recommendations, and her concern that the proximity of ground interments to her property would cause a loss of privacy. Mike McClung, 1896 Peninsula Verde Drive, supported the staff recommendation and stated that only the perimeter landscaping impacted the homeowners. Mr. McClung also commended the Park management on the high quality of the operation. Dick Brunner, 1906 Peninsula Verde Drive, expressed concern with the above ground structures and asked that the code requirment for a 40' setback be adopted. Mr. Brunner also claimed that the Park was already selling Phase I plots. PLANNING COMMIS,�& MEETING July 24, 1990 9 R. Booth Tarkington, 1902 Peninsula Verde Drive, supported a 40' setback. Rodman C. Small, 2110 PVDN, #112, Lomita, also supported the staff recommendations and asked if the partial CUP would affect the results of the homeowners' negotiations with the cemetery management regarding the later development phases. Leo Connolly, 1953 Avenida Feliciano, also spoke in support of the staff recommendation, and asked that a condition be added to mandate hedge trimming to fence height on the south boundary. Mr. Connolly also pointed out a problem with dust abatement during grading operations. Arnold Oksenkrug, 1979 Avenida Feliciano, objected to the 16' setback for below ground burials recommended by his homeowners association for the later phases. Helen Metzler, 1921 Avenida Feliciano, also supported the staff recommendation. Henry Jeffries, 2110 PVDN, #101, Lomita, asked about signage, and agreed that the administration building should be open on Sundays. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to close the public hearing, and Commissioner Katherman seconded. Commissioner Von Hagen stated there were some new issues to be discussed and questioned closing the public hearing. Mr. Katherman withdrew his second at this point. Mr. Von Hagen also stated that he and the applicant used the same law firm, but that he did not perceive any conflict of interest. The Commission then allowed applicant Levonian to state that the Park management had an obligation to develop a portion of Phase I before the end of the year, and he asked that the Commission let it proceed. Commissioner Brooks ascertained from Mr. Levonian that the cemetery was indeed actively selling Phase I. Commissioner Brooks seconded the original motion to close the public hearing, stating that although there were new issues, it would be possible to vote on the limited CUP. Mr. Benard noted that the Commission had the ability to discuss as broad or as narrow a scope of a project as they felt was appropriate, and to approve and condition it accordingly. Commissioner Katherman suggested leaving the public hearing open for the duration of the issue in order to be able to ask questions, and Ms. Brooks withdrew her second. Commissioner Von Hagen expressed a question as to whether or not the Commission could legally approve only a partial CUP, and whether the applicant was under any legal obligation to start with Phase I, or if he could start any of the other phases at any time. Mr. Von Hagen asked if the City Attorney Page 3 PLANNING COMMISAW MEETING July 24, 1990 had looked at this issue, and Chairman McNulty stated his concern that a rapid opinion would not be forthcoming with the recent resignation of the City Attorney. Chairman McNulty stated that continuing the public hearing would be a disservice to the neighbors and the applicant. Mr. McNulty then expressed personal concern that the City was headed for a lawsuit in taking property without due process of law, and cited Coastal Commission action in support of his personal opinion. Mr. McNulty qualified his statement saying that he was aware of these issues as an attorney, although he was not speaking as one. Commissioner Hotchkiss pointed out that there was no setback issue in Phase I anyway, and Commissioner Brooks restated her second to close the public hearing. The motion to close the public hearing passed 4-1 with Commissioner Von Hagen dissenting. After a five-minute recess called at 9:10pm, Commissioner Brooks moved to adopt the staff recommendation with amendments, and a discussion followed, during which condition -by -condition adjustments were made to Exhibit "A". Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded Ms. Brooks' motion, and it passed 3-2 with Chairman McNulty and Commissioner Von Hagen dissenting. (The following item was taken out of order) NEW BUSINESS A. TRACT No. 32677 Planner Olson stated that MISCELLANEOUS the applicant had accepted Hilltop Circle all conditions of approval regarding lighting for the tennis court. Commissioner Brooks moved to approve the application, Commissioner Katherman seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. (PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED) B. VARIANCE NO. 263 Assistant Planner Mike 30306 Diamonte Lane Patterson presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow completion of a partially constructed deck extending 15' over an extreme slope and a barbeque area in the side setback. Staff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions. The public hearing was opened, but since there were no people to speak to the issue, it was closed. Commissioner Brooks noted that she had visited the site. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved approval of the staff recommendation, Commissioner Von Hagen seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Chairman McNulty noted that this was Assistant Planner Lisa Page 4 PLANNING COMMISS& MEETING July 24, 1990 11 Marie Davidson's last meeting, and on behalf of the Commission, he thanked her for all her good work and wished her well in her new position. C. HEIGHT VARIATION Planner Davidson presented NO. 661 -- APPEAL the staff report regarding 6505 Via Siena the applicant's request to overturn staff denial of a second story addition, thereby approving the proposed project. Staff's conclusion was that there would be a significant near view impact to the property at 6508 Via Lorenzo, and staff's recommendation is to deny the appeal. The public hearing was then opened. William M. Corcoran, 6505 Via Siena, appellant, presented photos of the impacted view area in question, stating he felt there would be no significant view impairment to the Via Lorenzo house, and he asked the Commission to uphold the appeal. Elizabeth A. Corcoran, 6505 Via Siena, co -appellant, also asked that the Commission uphold the appeal, stating that the house was currently too small for their growing family. Elayne Roland, 6504 Via Siena, spoke in support of the appellants. Harold Roland, 6504 Via Siena, also spoke in support of the appellants, and stated that the proposed expansion could positively effect property values in the area. Frank Politeo, 809 S. Gaffey, San Pedro, appellants architect, stated that he did not feel any view impairment would result from the proposed addition because the Via Lorenzo property already had a blocked view from trees and wires. Mr. Politeo also explained that the addition was designed to fit in with the rest of the house and the neighborhood. Eleanor Husted, 6521 Via Siena, spoke against the staff recommendation. Helen Johnston, 6613 Via Siena, also spoke against the staff recommendation, and said that there was a need to remodel the older houses on the street. Speaking as a real estate agent, Ms. Johnston stated that she did not believe the Via Lorenzo house could be classified as a view property. Arline Tackett, 6520 Via Lorenzo, stated that it was unreasonable for the Via Lorenzo owners to claim any view impairment, and she urged the Commission to overturn the denial. Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSO MEETING July 24, 1990 w Lydia Shors, 6520 Via Siena, also spoke against the staff recommendation. Catherine Gassman, 6517 Via Siena, also urged the Commission to uphold the appeal, stating that the Via Lorenzo area had not been represented as a view area when the houses were being sold. Barry Gassman, 6517 Via Siena, also spoke in support of the appellants. Joseph Yankovich, 4121 Miraleste Drive, spoke against the staff recommendation. Michael Goodrich, 6612 Via Siena, also spoke against the staff recommendation. Steve Spruth, 6512 Via Siena, stated he had looked at the Via Lorenzo homes when purchasing his, but did not feel any of them had views, and that he believed that property values would be increased as a result of this project. Jerry Rodin, 6508 Via Siena, spoke in support of the appellant, reading from a prepared statement citing technical reasons he felt the appellant had the right to develop has property, and that it did not cause any view impairment. Patricia Wildasinn, 6348 Via Colinita, spoke against the staff recommendation. Betty Haller, 6536 Via Siena, spoke against the staff recommendation, stating that she felt denial of this project would set a bad precedent, limiting development an the Miraleste area, and that this was a poor test of the Proposition "M" near view aspect. Jeff Haller, 6536 Via Siena, spoke against the staff recommendation for the same reasons. Nick Zar, 6521 Via Siena, who noted that he had been on the Proposition "M" committee, stated he felt the addition was compatible with the neighborhood, and that as a realtor, dad not feel that the Via Lorenzo house could be considered a view property. Mr. Zar also noted that this was a benchmark case and could have a severe negative impact on other area projects. Commissioner Katherman asked Mr. Zar what has interpretation of a "near" view was as a former Proposition "M" committee member, and Mr. Zar replied that the intent was open to interpretation, but the elements of the view in question are excluded by the language of the new code. Peter Bozanach, 6508 Via Lorenzo, owner of the potentially view impacted property, asserted that he had rights under Proposition "M", and expressed displeasure that people had come onto his property to take pictures. Mr. Bozanach also Page 6 r - PLANNING COMMISSO MEETING July 24, 1990 noted that the foliage blocking his near view was not on his property. In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Bonzanich admitted that his property had not been sold to him as a view home, but that he felt the sight of the trees and hillside was important. Murray Goldenberg, 6504 Via Lorenzo, spoke in support of the staff recommendation, stated that the staff had competently dealt with the technical issues of view impairment, and stated that the proposed addition would impact his view of the hill and cause him loss of privacy. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that the staff had not found potential view impairment at Mr. Goldenberg's property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that he had visited the site and residences in question, and felt there was no significant view impact, that the provisions of Proposition "M" were not violated here, and that he was in favor of the appeal. Commissioner Brooks also noted that she had visited the site, and as a former member of the RPV Council of Homeowner's Association, she had worked on the original view ordinance committee, and her interpretation of "near" view addressed foliage, not buildings. Ms. Brooks stated she did not feel the hillside could be called a near view. Commissioner Hotchkiss commended the staff on their work, but stated he did not feel this was the intent of the ordinance, and that he would vote to approve the project. Mr. Hotchkiss also expressed fears about future enforcement of Proposition limit, Commissioner Katherman also expressed concerns about precedent -setting. At this point, Mr. Benard clarified that the language in the code regarding existing foliage states that it should not be considered in a view analysis, and that the hillside in question does show development but also natural pastoral aspects. He also stated that other design options could provide some relief to the perceived view impact, but would not satisfy the needs of the appellant, although that was not part of the staff's consideration in this case. Chairman McNulty noted his opposition to Proposition "M", stating he felt it was wrong for one person to be able to block a project. Mr. McNulty also addressed the importance of addressing this first test case in a logical reasonable manner. Chairman McNulty stated that he did not feel the Bozanich property could in any way be construed as a view property, and that Proposition "M" had been written to protect existing views, and that he did not feel this was a Page 7 PLANNING COMMIS* MEETING July 24, 1990 protected view. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to adopt staff alternative #2, to approve the appeal, thereby overturning the Staff denial and approving Height Variation No. .661.) Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1445 Lisa Marie Davidson 6000 Sandbrook presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to allow construction of a 10 foot high retaining wall to be located in the rear yard. Staff's recommendation is to deny the request. Greg Abramowitz, 1360 Capitol Drive, San Pedro, applicant representing the landowner, stated that the wall had been designed to stabilize the property, and that it didn't impact anyone. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to adopt staff alternative #1, to approve the project, Commissioner Brooks seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS since the 11:00pm deadline had passed, the one remaining New Business item was not heard. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Von Hagen commended Lisa Marie Davidson on her outstanding work on the first Proposition "M" issue, and said that all her previous work had been outstanding. Mr. Von Hagen stated he was sorry to see her go, and the other Commissioners echoed his sentiments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:00am. � 4 � M..-