Loading...
CC MINS 19880418 JNTM I N U T E S CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT WORK SESSION APRIL 18, 1988 The joint work session of the City Council and Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Ryan and vice-Chairman McNulty, at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard in said City, notice having-been given with affidavit thereto on file. 0 CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL. PRESENT: BACHARACH, HINCHLIFFE., HUGHES, McTAGGART AND MAYOR RYAN ABSENT., ..NONE PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL PRESENT: ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, MCNULTY ABSENT: CHAIRMAN CONNOLLY WIKE, AND VICE CHAIRMAN Also present were City Manager Dennis McDuffie, Environmental Services Director Robert Benard, and City Attorney Steve Dorsey.. HEIGHT VARIATION WORKSHOP Mayor Ryan opened the work session for discussion. Commissioner McNulty said an issue of major concern is whether or not consideration should be given to a potential view from a home if existing trees currently obstructing such view were removed. He said, if trees. are not, considered and the height variation is granted, the City may be replacing a temporary view blockage from trees (which nay someday be trl*mmed -.or removed) with a permanent view blockage � f rom a structure. Environmental Services Director Benard said that height variations are often-, conditioned with the removal -of trees if the view - obstructing trees are located on the applicant's property-4. He referred to- a.current.case where a number of trees on the property impair the view-from the public right- of-way and from residences. He said that project is being conditioned with the removal of existing trees and with a limit on any new plantings there. City Attorney Dorsey said that was a reasonable approach, assuming it can be determined that there would be a view if there were no trees. He said in that case, a second story addition, because of the removal of trees, would actually improve the situation. Mayor Ryan asked about the possibility of an ordinance stipulating that all trees planted after a specific effective date not block views, and he wondered if the City could also limit the height of existing trees. Councilmember Hughes asked about amortizing the life of existing trees. City Attorney Dorsey was not sure about how to apply the amortization theory to trees. He said the City would need evidence of height and that one method would be for the person worried about view impairment to pay for staff to take inventory of the trees. He said from a legal standpoint, Council has the authority to set an absolute height limit on trees and establish a time limit for bringing over-height trees into compliance, but thought it would be very difficult to apply such a law. He said another alternative, which might create fewer problems, would be to require thinning the trees rather than topping, which often kills the trees, or removal. Environmental Services Director Benard said if foliage grows together to block view and passage, it is dealt with as a wall any may not exceed six feet in height. He said foliage higher than six feet must be thinned to allow the passage of light, air and visibility, etc. Councilmember Hughes did not think it would be practical to do an inventory of existing trees and noted that some types of trees do not survive lacing. Councilmember McTaggart said trees become more valuable as they get older and they create oxygen. Mayor Ryan asked if the current Code would permit denial of a height variation on the basis that the structure would obstruct a view if existing trees, which are currently blocking the view, were not there. City Attorney Dorsey said the City does not have that jurisdiction under the current law and was concerned that changing the Code might make decisions more subject to being overturned in a court of law. -2- APRIL 18, 1988 Mayor Ryan asked about the possibility of requiring, from property owners who want their views protected and who object to a neighbor's height variation, a deed restriction or agreement that they will in turn protect the views of others. City Attorney Dorsey said that was a novel approach and did not know if it had ever been tried before. one of his concerns was that it would result in interlocking agreements between several property owners. Councilwoman Bacharach said it was not reasonable for the City to inventory all the trees, and was concerned about having,too-much government involvement by trying to solve problems between neighbors, In response to questions by Councilmember Hinchliffe, City Attorney.Dorsey said there are several ordinances which allow the, City to . go. onto other people's property on zoning- matters and that there may be a way to properly handle trees without conflicting with privacy or personal property rights. He said there is..currently,.no law that prohibits ,view. obstruction from, trees and noted. that the. pending initiative does not:-- address it., .- __ - . ., Councilmember Hinchliffe said he agreed with Mayor Ryan's idea regarding an,agreement or. deed restriction but also agreed with.Councilwoman Bacharach's concern about the role of - government- with, regard.. to third. parties.. He said it was not realistic to develop an- ordinance to go onto a third party� s property. Mayor Ryan referred.to drawings he had on display showing two examples. of,how.the protection of views with a 16-foot envelope-As not always fair,, The first drawing depicted a home -which. by,.law could_ not be granted a height variation (to obtain.a view) because it,would,..obstruct the view from the first floor of a two - story - behind it, which has. a view from both floors. The other drawing would permit a height variation which would obstruct the view-from the home behind it because said view is from.. the,. second f loor... - and the Code protects only those views.within.the 16-,foot height limit. Commissioner Ortolano said there are a number- of homes on the east side which were originally built to have a second-story view. she said although.the current.Code,is clear-and easy to support.-it is-not always equitable. City Attorney Dorsey said;the -policy -has been to consider views from the primary living area, not bedrooms or- kitchens, etc. He said the existing Code is easy to defend and that zoning , regulations. must be.applied.uniformly in order , to. . avoid creating special -rights. He.expressed concern about 3 APRIL 18, 1988 tryl*ng_to tailor the ordinance to handle individual' situations and referred to a' recent court case involving the City of-Downey,, Environmental Services Director Benard pointed out that the designation of a room may convert, without physical change, from a bedroom to a den. He also said that any portion of a house constructed with a variance does not count as principal viewing area. Councilmember McTaggart noted that a lot does not have to have a home on it to have its view protected. commissioner McNulty thought they should address upside down homes--those constructed with the living area on the top floor. Commissioner Von Hagen said it might be appropriate to consider an overly to deal with the homes on the north and east side of the City. Councilmember Hinchliffe asked if there was any language that would give some discretionary power to the Planning Commission and staff when dealing with height variations, city Attorney Dorsey said there is already some discretion with regard to principal identifiable view and that the determination of principal viewing area is left to the Environmental Services Director. He said it appears that the problems lie with upside down houses and the fact that the Code offers no protection for views above 16 feet. From a legal standpoint, he thought it might be possible to deal with the problem by establishing overlay districts on a tract-by-tract basis . He said the City was trying to balance the right to build a two-story house against the right to have a view. He said while the City cannot prohibit someone from reasonable use of their property, it can have a view ordinance to protect significant views, Commissioner Wike said in some cases there is view impairment, which could be eliminated by redesigning or relocating the structure, but that unless the view is determined to be significant, such conditions cannot be imposed on the project. Councilmember Hughes said it is impossible to protect every view and that the City must strike a balance between what is and what is not realistic. He pointed out that no matter what ordinance is drafted, there will always be cases where it does not fit. Councilwoman Bacharach brought up the issue of blocking the sun from solar panels. She said people should be encouraged MM4- APRIL 18, 1988 to use all the resources at hand and there should be some protection in that area, City Attorney Dorsey said there is no private right to prohibit shade from solar panels. He said the State Law does offer protection to some degree but did not know if cities could regulate beyond that. He said he would check on it. With regard to the notification period, Environmental Services Director Benard said the majority of discretionary permits requires 15 days and the change from 10 days to 15 days for height variations would make it consistent. ADJOURNMENT By motion of Councilmember Hughes, seconded by Counci lmember Hinchliffe, the City Council adjourned at 10:13 P.M. to April 19, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. By motion of Commissioner Von Hagen, seconded by Commissioner Wike, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10-013 P.M. to April 26, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. ATTEST: City Clerk . I I ayor -5- APRIL 18, 1988