Loading...
PC MINS 19910122 PC MINS 19910122 Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1991 PAGE 1 is MISSING PLANNING COMMISS N MEETING January 22, 1991 story master bedroom, as well as loss of privacy and cumulative view impact. Mr. Chang also stated that it would force him to build his own addition to regain his view, thereby impacting other neighbors. Director Benard commented that under the Code, a second story cannot be designated as a viewing area. Grace Chang, 29031 Warnick, co-appellant, also spoke in favor of the appeal , objecting to the size of the new wall , loss of privacy and view. Jim Hood, 29025 Warnick, presented a written statement and spoke in support of the appeal , and suggested the applicant build the addition in another area. Karen Hood, 29025 Warnick, also expressed objection to the project and stated she had not received notice of the Height Variation. Commissioner Brooks stated she had visited the site and asked about a similar addition nearby. Mrs. Hood stated it was a smaller addition that did not impact any views. Wendy Nieh, 29040 Warnick, spoke in favor of the appeal , and added that home values would be adversely affected by the possible view loss. Vera Culjat, 6554 Madeline Cove, supported the appeal , stating she feared a negative precedent. An Min Liu, 29024 Warnick, also stated her objection to the project. Denise Sperber, 29014 Warnick, expressed support for the appeal . Tom Wang, 29041 Warnick, also spoke against the project, and suggested a smaller 16' addition. Chang Jean Wang, 29041 Warnick, also spoke against the project. Ashis Kumar Mandal, 29035 Warnick, applicant, presented a written statement, and spoke against the appeal , stating he had held two open houses to explain the project to neighbors. Mr. Mandal also noted that several nearby residences had undergone similar expansions, and said he felt his project was well within City requirements, and did not impact his neighbors views or privacy adversely. Celina Gonzales, 8952 Cypress Avenue, Downey, project architect, stated they would be willing to remove the second story windows to mitigate any perceived impact on the neighbors privacy. Commissioner Katherman asked the staff if a case could be made for cumulative impact if the other neighbors were to build similar additions to restore their views. Director Benard explained that the cumulative impact was defined as multiple projects taken Page 2 111 PLANNING COMMISS N MEETING January 22, 1991 together at one time. Commissioner McNulty stated he would support the appeal , because he felt this project was not compatible with the neighborhood. He also said he felt the view had been carefully designed into each home in the tract, and that this project would disrupt that design, as well as encourage others to build similar additions. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he could not make the findings to support the appeal , agreeing that it would change the neighborhood, but that this was not an appropriate application of neighborhood compatibility. Director Benard noted that under the Code, the definition of neighborhood compatibility included such criteria as style, but did not include views. Commissioner McNulty said he felt the design to maximize the view was a style. Commissioner Brooks stated she would like to uphold the appeal , but could not make the findings under the Code. Both Ms. Brooks and Commissioner Katherman stated they wanted to see some design compromise to minimize the privacy and view impacts. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to adopt the staff recommendation to deny the appeal, and Chairman Von Hagen seconded the motion, which failed 2-3, with Commissioners Katherman, Brooks and McNulty dissenting. Commissioner McNulty moved to uphold the appeal, seconded by Commissioner Katherman, and passed 3-2 with Chairman Von Hagen and Commissioner Hotchkiss dissenting. Commissioner Katherman then requested a motion to reconsider, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded, and the motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner McNulty dissenting. The question to uphold the appeal and deny the project was then called again, and this time failed 1-4, with only Commissioner McNulty assenting. Commissioner Hotchkiss then moved to adopt staff recommendation to deny the appeal, amending the motion to require that both side windows on the addition be removed. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion, and it passed 3-2, with Commissioners McNulty and Katherman dissenting. B. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 30 Director Benard presented the View Restoration staff report regarding the amendment of the view restoration and preservation provisions of the Development Code, and the request to conduct a public hearing and recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance by City Council . Mr. Benard also noted that the recommendations had been developed jointly with the View Restoration Committee. The public hearing was opened. John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, presented a written Page 3 II/ PLANNING COMMISS N MEETING January 22, 1991 statement and spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment, stating it would create a cumulative adverse environmental impact and that it was unconstitutional to take private property without compensation. Mr. Sharkey also stated he felt the View Restoration Committee should not have the ability to require tree removal . Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, objected to the fact that the View Restoration Committee decisions are not appealable. Mike Bak-Boychuck, 2020 Crest Road, a lawyer representing several property owners in lawsuits regarding foliage removal , questioned the legal jurisdiction of the View Restoration Committee, and stated that California courts have ruled that such ordinances are not legal . Director Benard noted that the City Attorney believed this ordinance to be constitutional . The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brooks moved to adopt staff recommendation to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance, and Commissioner Katherman seconded. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he could not support the motion, as he felt it would create more problems than already exist with Proposition "M" in effect. Chairman Von Hagen declared that since the Chairman of the View Restoration Committee stated that he could work with this amendment, it should be adopted. Director Benard noted that the issue was originally identified by staff as essential to the ordinance. Commissioner McNulty opined that this attempt to further modify the ordinance was not necessary. Mr. McNulty also stated he felt the ordinance violated basic property rights and would create serious problems in taking property without due process and in charging the residents for the procedure. Chairman Von Hagen reopened the public hearing to allow the Chairman of the View Restoration Committee to speak. Larry Clark, 3354 Corinna, Chairman of the View Restoration Committee, stated he was in agreement with the staff recommendations and explained how the amendment would facilitate the Committee' s job, and give the flexibility that legal counsel feels is necessary to effect the ordinance. Commissioner Hotchkiss observed that since the Committee' s decisions were not appealable, the criteria should not be so subjective. The public hearing was again closed. The original motion was restated, and passed 3-2 with Commissioners Hotchkiss and McNulty dissenting. Page 4 PLANNING COMMISS N MEETING 111 January 22, 1991 RECESS AND RECONVENE A ten minute break was called at 9: 30pm. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Director Benard presented the NO. 131, VARIANCE NO. staff report regarding the 182, GRADING NO. 1066 applicant' s request to extend Marriott/Crestridge the expiration date of the CUP, Variance and Grading Permit one year to April 18, 1992. Staff' s recommendation is to approve the extension pursuant to all previous conditions remaining in effect. Commissioner Brooks asked if there was any way to change the trail limitations, and Mr. Benard stated that a request for reconsideration would open up the CUP, and that the Commission could re-address that concern. The public hearing was opened. Cheryl Bloodworth, 3130 S. Harbor, Santa Ana, representing the Marriott Corporation, expressed the company' s continuing enthusiasm for the project, and desire to proceed as soon as the legal aspects are settled. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, opposed the project, stating it was contrary to the General Plan. Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff, representing the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association, asked that the conditions regarding easements and trails be clarified and changed to match the original City Council recommendations. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brooks restated her concerns regarding the trails limitations. Commissioner McNulty moved staff recommendation, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Von Hagen noted that this action would be by minute order. NEW BUSINESS A. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT Associate Planner Joel Rojas NO. 407 -- APPEAL presented the staff report 6863 Alta Vista regarding the appellant' s request to overturn staff' s denial of a request to allow a 20% reduction in the required total sideyard setback for construction of a 720 square foot deck. Staff' s recommendation is to deny the appeal . Hannibal Petrossi, 2082 SE Bristol, Santa Ana, architect representing the appellant, explained why the deck could not be built in other areas of the property. As a compromise, Commissioner McNulty suggested the deck be shortened by 2 ' and follow the property line or 10% reduction in Page 5 411 PLANNING COMMISS N MEETING January 22, 1991 the total sideyard setback. The appellant' s representative finally agreed to the idea. Commissioner McNulty moved staff alternative #2, to approve the appeal, with the condition that the deck boundary line shown on the applicant's drawing be moved 2' to the west, thus giving the deck a continuous 7' setback along the property line. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, requested information regarding artesian wells in the Klondike Canyon, and Commissioner Hotchkiss suggested she attend the Abatement District meetings. COMMISSION REPORTS Chairman Von Hagen asked about the platform built on the Monaghan site, and Mr. Benard stated it was a temporary structure for a film location. Commissioner Brooks requested Commission consideration of an excuse for future absences in order to deal with a medical problem. Commissioner McNulty moved to grant her the excuse of absence for up to three months, Commissioner Katherman seconded, and it was so ordered without objection. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10: 50pm to February 4 at Ladera Linda Community Center. Page 6